SG Courts

SG Courts

2/26/2025, 9:14:48 AM

In Akbar Ali s/o Abdul Majeed v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 32, the General Division of the High Court upheld the District Judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s application for costs and compensation orders. The court found that the prosecution was neither marked by evidential insufficiency nor pursued with malice, dishonesty, or improper motives such as to render the prosecution frivolous or vexatious. A no case to answer submission would not be determinative. Moreover, the propriety of the investigative and prosecutorial processes, while in some instances related to the question of whether the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious, is a separate inquiry from the latter. Read more: go.gov.sg/2025sghc32

SG Courts

2/26/2025, 6:19:47 AM

In [2025] SGHC(I) 5, the Singapore International Commercial Court granted an order for recognition of the Chapter 11 Case of Quoine Pte. Ltd. in the United States as a foreign main proceeding and for additional appropriate reliefs relating to certain orders entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Read more: go.gov.sg/2025sghci5

SG Courts

2/26/2025, 3:37:50 AM

In Terrenus Energy SL2 Pte Ltd v Attika Interior + MEP Pte Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGHC(A) 4, the Appellate Division of the High Court (the “Appellate Division”) dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and allowed the defendant’s appeal. The Appellate Division held that an intention to cure is neither a prerequisite nor generally a weighty factor in awarding the cost of cure as damages; rather, it is but one of the factors to be taken into account when assessing whether it is reasonable and proportionate to award the cost of cure as damages. Read more: go.gov.sg/2025sghca4

SG Courts

2/19/2025, 3:21:40 AM

In PP v. Pritam Singh, Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan convicted the accused of 2 offences under section 31(q) read with section 36(1)(b) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, for wilfully making a false answer to questions material to the subject of inquiry put during examination before the Committee of Privileges, and sentenced him to a fine of $7,000 per charge. Read more: go.gov.sg/oj

SG Courts

2/20/2025, 2:13:48 AM

In Pannir Selvam Pranthaman v Attorney-General of Singapore [2025] SGCA 7, the Court of Appeal summarily allowed an application for permission to make a post-appeal application in a capital case. The court also ordered a stay of the applicant's execution pending the determination of his post-appeal application in a capital case. Read more: go.gov.sg/2025sgca7

SG Courts

2/20/2025, 3:53:07 AM

In Syed Suhail Bin Syed Zin & 12 Ors v AG [2024] 2 SLR 588, the Singapore Prison Service (“SPS”) disclosed, to the Attorney-General's Chambers (“AGC"), 13 prisoners’ correspondence with government agencies, organisations, and individuals, without their consent or a court order. In response, the claimant-prisoners sought various declarations as well as damages against the Attorney-General, regarding: the unlawful disclosure of their correspondence, breach of confidence, and copyright infringement. The Court of Appeal (“CA”) ruled partially in favour of the prisoners, granting declarations that both the AGC and SPS acted unlawfully by disclosing prisoners’ letters, and that the AG breached confidentiality. Read more: go.gov.sg/smu-2024sgca39

SG Courts

2/21/2025, 7:32:10 AM

In Re Terraform Labs Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 4, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) granted the reliefs sought by the applicant under Art 21(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as adopted in Singapore by way of s 252 and the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “SG Model Law”), including an order for the recognition of its US Chapter 11 liquidation plan and US court order confirming the plan. The SICC held that the chapeau of Art 21(1) of the SG Model Law grants the court an expansive and open-ended discretion to grant appropriate relief and allows the court to be guided by principles of comity and a spirit of cooperation with foreign courts. Read more: go.gov.sg/2025sghci4

SG Courts

2/18/2025, 8:00:52 AM

In Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd and another and another matter [2025] SGHC(I) 3, the Singapore International Commercial Court granted the ex parte application for a worldwide Mareva injunction in support of a New-York seated arbitration, where it was unlikely the arbitral tribunal or New York courts would grant the injunction sought. Read more: go.gov.sg/2025sghci3.

SG Courts

2/18/2025, 1:24:31 AM

In Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2024] 2 SLR 624, the Court of Appeal considered whether the term “Parmesan” was a translation of “Parmigiano Reggiano” and held that it was not. Based on the range of “Parmesan” cheese products marketed and sold to Singapore consumers, Singapore consumers did not regard “Parmesan” cheese as cheese which must originate exclusively from the specified region in Bologna, Italy. As such, the protections of the GI “Parmigiano Reggiano” did not extend to the term “Parmesan”. Read more: go.gov.sg/smu-2024sgca53. #SGCourtsxSMU

SG Courts

2/19/2025, 10:08:35 AM

In SME Care Pte Ltd v Chan Siew Lee Jannie and another matter [2025] SGHC 27, the General Division of the High Court considered three separate applications against the private trustee in bankruptcy’s (“PTIB”) decision regarding proofs of debt filed against the Bankrupt’s estate. The court dismissed the Bankrupt’s applications to set aside the PTIB’s admission of a proof of debt filed by SME Care Pte Ltd and two parts of a proof of debt filed by Timor Global Pte Ltd (“TGPL”). The court allowed Fulcrum Distressed Partners Limited’s application to reverse the PTIB’s rejection of two other parts of TGPL’s proof of debt, as FDPL had proven its claim in relation to Bankrupt’s breach of fiduciary duties.Read more: go.gov.sg/2025sghc27