: at [18] and [19]. 8 Although the defendants had sought for “an order that the Plaintiffs not be allowed to bring any other action or claim in respect of the same subject-matter as the Withdrawn Claims (whether in Singapore or any other jurisdiction)”, it was not appropriate for the Court to make this order because it was unclear how such an order could be enforced by the plaintiffs who were not resident in Singapore. If such a claim were to be brought by the plaintiffs in the future before some court, it would be for that forum to determine whether the claim was barred by laches

her submissions before me, I neither consider nor hold her to them. The DPPs should deal with this in the proper setting and before the proper forum. Nothing I have said here can  or should have  any bearing on the decision of that forum.        Relevant factors43    At the second stage of the  Salwant  Singh  framework, the court should consider whether any relevant factors weigh in favour of or against an investigation into the alleged misconduct. In the present case, the evidence, including the affidavits

Chapter 15 of the United  States Bankruptcy  Code  (“Bankruptcy Code”)  despite not having a  place  of business in the United  States  as would typically be required under s 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court found that the requirements of s 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code were nonetheless satisfied  as  the applicant in that case  a)  had  deposited  money to retain New York lawyers,  b)  had US  dollar-denominated  debt issued under New York law, with the choice of New York as the forum for disputes

Plaintiff.  22    The Defendants submitted that the Fresh Evidence should not be admitted because the requirements in  Ladd v Marshall  [1954] 1 WLR 1489 (“Ladd v Marshall”) were not satisfied.        The applicability of Ladd v Marshall23    The three requirements in  Ladd v Marshall  are well established.  The party seeking to adduce fresh evidence must  fulfil  the “non-availability requirement”, the “relevance requirement” and the “reliability requirement” (Anan Group (Singapore

; SAA’s Code of Conduct dated 23 November 2018 signed between the Plaintiff and SAA (the “COC”);b.      The Singapore National Olympic Council’s (“SNOC”) Team Membership Agreement signed between the Plaintiff and SNOC (“SNOC TMA”);c.      The spexCarding Agreement dated 23 November 2018 signed between the Plaintiff and SAA; andd.      A letter regarding the Plaintiff’s alleged non-compliance with the SNOC TMA dated on or before 14 August 2017 from Yip Ren Kai, Team Manager, SNOC, MGPC 

give him 50% of the Inheritance (“the purported promise”).  He further claimed  that  pursuant to the purported promise, the plaintiff had  given  him the  cash  portion of the Inheritance  as the equivalent of  the 50%  she had  promised.  He explained that this was because  the Inheritance also comprised non-cash assets which could not be  readily  liquidated.  The cash portion of the Inheritance was therefore the proxy for the value of the purported promise.  According to the first defendant,  the

;3213,  when I granted the  first  defendant’s application to cross-examine the plaintiff, that it is extremely difficult for the court to discern the truth from the affidavit evidence.  It  is  unfortunate that the plaintiff had not applied to cross-examine the first defendant in OS 1446. Therefore, Suit 1048 will be the best forum to serve the ends of justice and for the truth to be precipitated. For these reasons, I grant  SUM 2628 and dismiss  SUM 2629.  The first  defendant’s counterclaim in OS 1446 is stayed

;      CKC2 at Exhibit CKC-6: RBOD at p 360.   That too  discussed Mr Chng’s  personal  entitlement to a dividend pay-out from the Yamal Project, rather than an entitlement owing to the Company. As  Mr  Chng acknowledged, “[this dividend entitlement] would have to be dealt with in another forum”. 9

it conflicts with an earlier foreign judgment recognised under the private  international law of the forum.  In fact, in  Summons No 5284 of 2017, the AR  hearing the application  had already found that  WIAR Limited  was  estopped  from  suing  PT Bank  in respect of the  WestLB Claim  as the 2014 Indonesian Judgment was a final and conclusive judgment on the merits. This decision was upheld by the High Court on  appeal.  I therefore found the WestLB Enforcement Claim to be legally unsustainable  as