 |
|
- Significant cases & deals featuring our lawyers
Lee Eng Beng SC from the Business Finance and Insolvency Practice, and Disa Sim and Jonathan Lee from the Appeals & Issues Practice successfully acted for Hong Leong Finance Ltd ("HLF") in resisting an appeal by the Plaintiffs against the decision of Justice Belinda Ang in New York Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte (formerly known as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Asia (Singapore) Pte) and others v Hong Leong Finance Ltd [2013] SGHC 83.
The Plaintiffs were the arranger and issuer of Pinnacle Notes. When the Pinnacle Notes failed, HLF, a distributor of the notes, brought proceedings against the Plaintiffs in New York. The proceedings brought by HLF were materially identical to an ongoing Class Action in New York alleging fraud on the part of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sought to restrain HLF from continuing with the New York proceedings. After their application to restrain was rejected by the High Court, the Plaintiffs appealed. We have discussed the High Court proceedings in the March/April 2013 issue of our NewsBytes.
On 22 May 2013, the Court of Appeal (Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang, and Judge of Appeal V K Rajah) dismissed the appeal. In oral remarks, Justice Chao held that the Plaintiffs / Appellants had not shown that Singapore was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum for the action. He also added the Plaintiffs / Appellants had not shown that Justice Ang had exercised her discretion incorrectly in refusing to grant the Plaintiffs / Appellants an anti-suit injunction.
We had featured this case in the June issue of our Client Update. To view the Update, please click on this link.
Back to Top Print
Jansen Chow and Alywin Goh from the Commercial Litigation Practice successfully represented Lotusonwater Jadeite Pte Ltd ("Plaintiff") in Lotusonwater Jadeite Pte Ltd v Ang Chee Soon Vincent [2013] SGHC 100, in a claim against its customer ("Defendant") for balance payment due of about S$500,000 for the purchase of a Buddha statue.
The Defendant's main defence was that the agreement between the parties was for geomancy services and that the statue was merely a part of such services. As the geomancy services were not provided, he was not liable to pay the balance sum due. The Defendant relied on conflicting invoices issued by the Plaintiff (including one for geomancy services) in support of this defence.
The Court rejected the Defendant's allegations and judgment was entered in full for the Plaintiff. The Court considered that the strongest evidence against the Defendant was the fact that he had never raised any allegation that the agreement was purportedly for geomancy services in any of his responses to the Plaintiff's demand for payment prior to the commencement of legal proceedings. If the agreement was truly for geomancy services, the Defendant would have raised it at first instance.Back to Top Print
Chandra Mohan, Mabelle Tay and Mrinalini Singh from the Commercial Litigation Practice Group successfully represented the Respondent law firm and its principal in Lee Chang-Rung and others v Leonard Loo LLP and another, in a claim by the Appellants – former clients of the Respondents – for negligence and loss of chance. At the High Court, the Judge accepted the Respondents' submission of no case to answer. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Court below and dismissed the appeal.
The Respondents had represented the Appellants in a claim against Standard Chartered Bank, but this suit was struck out after the Appellants failed to comply with an Unless Order for the disclosure of documents. The Appellants then alleged that the suit was struck out due to negligence on the part of the Respondents, leading to a loss of chance of success in the suit. The Court of Appeal held that the suit had been struck out not because of any negligence on the part of the Respondents, but because of the Appellants’ own unwillingness to produce the required documents. It also held that the Appellants had not established a real or substantial chance of succeeding in the suit against Standard Chartered Bank in the first place.
Back to Top Print
Cynthea Zhou from the International Arbitration and Construction & Projects Practice successfully represented Mdm Cheung Wing Yu in Cheung Wing Yu v Neng Helen (Case No. OS112/2013/D), in applying for guardianship of her granddaughter. Despite the fact that the Guardianship of Infants Act does not expressly provide grandparents locus standi in applying for guardianship, Cynthea persuaded the court to grant both a dispensation of service of the application on the mother of the child and an order for guardianship in favour of the applicant in view of the special circumstances of the case. Practice Trainee Timothy Steven Mak provided assistance to Cynthea for this case.
The case was referred to Rajah & Tann by the Legal Aid Bureau in September 2012. This is part of the Firm's pro bono initiative to make available its lawyers' expertise to the indigent who need legal representation. The other types of work that Rajah & Tann undertakes under its Pro Bono Programme include volunteering at legal clinics, being involved in Committee work for the Singapore Law Society and advisory work with non-profit organisations.
Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
Click here to read the articleBack to Top Print
|
|
|
|
