who continued their surveillance on the first appellant. At about 7.40pm, the first appellant was seen coming out of the apartment and leaving in a taxi. A short while later, Ah Ho came out of the apartment and stood at the side of Race Course Road.3 At about 7.50pm a Honda Accord, No EL 9991 H, driven by the third appellant arrived and stopped at the side of the road in front of Block 37. The third appellant got out of the car and spoke to Ah Ho. At about 8.05pm Ah Ho walked towards Rangoon Road, and a while later, the third appellant drove his car and parked it in front of Block 39. He

an oppressive interrogation. In any event, she asserted, any suggestion from Paul Lim would not have had any impact on her or her friends as they were themselves already interested in the 1984 general elections. Teo also denied having helped the Workers` Party with the intention of using it as a vehicle to further a Marxist cause.8 With respect to her involvement in the Law Society, Teo denied having made use of the Law Society as a political pressure group, and also denied that her activities were carried out at Paul Lim`s instruction or persuasion.9 In respect of de Souza the

$18,720,000 would be paid out after the insurance bond was provided. 11    On the same day, Mr Comboni received a fax from FPCC[note: 5] which advised that the payment for the insurance bond was to be paid to: BANK NATIONALE DE PARIS, NEW YORK UID CHIP NO:0768 SWIFT CODE:BNPASGSG CREDIT A/C NO:200195286-003-39 OF BANK NATIONALE DE PARIS SINGAPORE BENEFICIARY: SHANKAR'S EMPORIUM PTE LTD A.C. NO: 50-000160-00791 BY ORDER OF : LIKO and the funds would be released thereafter. 12    That was the first time Mr Comboni became aware of the defendant, and he was assured

. Thenceforth, the only relevant disputes (if any) are those that arise from the settlement agreement (see  Real Estate Consortium Pte Ltd v East Coast Properties Pte Ltd and another  [2011] 2 SLR 758 (“Real Estate Consortium”) at [53] and [58];  Ling Yew Kong v  Teo  Vin Li  Richard  [2014] 2 SLR 123 at [67]–[68]; and  Gay Choon Ing  v  Loh  Sze Ti Peter  [2009] 2 SLR 332 at [54]).  As a general rule, the  parties to a settlement agreement cannot go back to the underlying claim and ask the court to  relook the merits

registrar, Mr Christopher De Souza, to set aside a statutory demand dated 2 August 2005, which was served on Wee on behalf of UBS AG (“the bank”) on the basis of Wee’s liability in respect of unpaid costs plus interest. Agreeing with the decision of the assistant registrar, I allowed the statutory demand to stand. 2          In brief outline, the background facts are as follows. Wee was the plaintiff in Suit No 834 of 2001 and the bank was the defendant. Justice Kan Ting Chiu dismissed the action with costs on 8 December 2003. Wee duly appealed against the dismissal of the action by way of Civil

insisted on being paid on a daily-rated basis and not on the unit-rated basis of its previous arrangement with the plaintiff. Capital Builders was engaged to carry out the carpentry formwork and the defendant’s own general workers completed the balance of the work. The defendant claims that as a consequence of this, very substantial costs were incurred. 22        At the commencement of the proceedings, there were several areas of dispute relating to liability and quantum. Counsel subsequently, with commendable good sense, resolved between themselves several issues as the hearing progressed. The

of Appeal  —  Civil Appeals No 117, 118, 121 and 134 of 2015 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and Steven Chong J  19 January 2016  31 August 2016    Judgment reserved.Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court):  Introduction1    In April 2005,  the judgment creditor in the present case obtained two  ex parte  provisional garnishee orders against  a subsidiary of

with the drugs in  the Flat, and was involved in heat-sealing them:(a)    The Appellant’s DNA was found on the interior and exterior of  two of the three  plastic bags found in the luggage bag  that contained the  plastic  packets of  diamorphine.  As for  the  remaining plastic bag, the Appellant’s DNA was found on its interior, though not on its exterior. 17

properly incurred and not improperly incurred. The general rule is quite plain; they are entitled to be paid back all that they have had to pay out. [emphasis added] This much is undisputed by parties. I would add that a trustee’s indemnity is of two types – a right to be indemnified out of the trust property and a personal indemnity against the beneficiary which extends beyond the trust assets and is based on the principle that the cestui que trust who gets the benefit of the property should bear its burden. Several authorities have sought to explain that the former type of

orders which I did as there was no necessity to decide whether Singapore courts have the jurisdiction to order pre-arbitration discovery. 27        I turn next to the case cited by both parties, for the principles applicable in an application for pre-action discovery. In the Kuah case, the applicants for pre-action discovery were Kuah and the other appellants. The appellants were minority shareholders in a company (“CLLS”) and had agreed to sell their shares to the majority shareholders at a price to be valued. The respondents (“E&Y”) were appointed to provide a non-speaking valuation and