Reports.TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited & anotherv UD Trading Group Holding Pte Ltd & another[2021] SGHCR 10General Division of the High Court — Suit No 624 of 2020 (Summons No 4702 of 2021) Colin Seow AR16 November 202110 December 2021 Colin Seow AR:Introduction1 This judgment concerns an application seeking a stay of court proceedings in Singapore on the ground of forum non conveniens, where the applicant, who is a co-defendant alleged to have assigned to the plaintiffs a right to enforce a corporate guarantee against another party, is not the subject of any substantive claim in the

… Respondentgrounds of decision[Civil Procedure] — [Appeals][Civil Procedure] — [Rules of court] — [Non-compliance][Civil Procedure] — [Service]      This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd and others vYihua Lifestyle Technology Co, Ltd and another [2021] SGCA 85Court of Appeal — Civil Appeal No 1 of 2021 

In the Singapore International Commercial Court of the republic of singapore[2021] SGHC(I) 18Suit No 4 of 2017BetweenKiri Industries Ltd… Plaintiff And(1)Senda International Capital Ltd(2)DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd… Defendantsjudgment[Civil Procedure] — [Costs] — [Principles] — [Costs against non-party] — [Joint and several liability for costs]This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.Kiri Industries

---

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE27 December 2021Case summaryKiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and anor [2021] SGHC(I) 18SIC/S 4/2017------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Decision of Kannan Ramesh J, Roger Giles IJ and Anselmo Reyes IJ:Outcome: SICC dismisses plaintiff’s application to make non-party jointly and severally liable for defendant’s costs under O 110 r 46(3)(c) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed). Background1 Kiri Industries Ltd (“Kiri”) and Senda International Capital Ltd

In the appellate division of the high court of the republic of singapore[2021] SGHC(A) 23Civil Appeal No 3 of 2021BetweenCheryl Tan Yi Lin… AppellantAndAIA Singapore Pte Ltd… RespondentIn the matter of Suit No 584 of 2019BetweenCheryl Tan Yi Lin… PlaintiffAndAIA Singapore Pte Ltd… DefendantGrounds of decision[Insurance] — [General principles] — [Claims] [Insurance] — [General principles] — [Non-disclosure][Contract] — [Misrepresentation] — [Fraudulent] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the

. 19 On 12 October 2020, BComm filed Summons No 4431 of 2020 (“SUM 4431”) for, inter alia, (a) a declaration that the Singapore courts have no jurisdiction over BComm (“the Declaration Application”); (b) a stay of the Suit on ground of forum non conveniens (“the Stay Application”); and (c) in the alternative, a case management stay of the Suit until the conclusion of the PRC Criminal Proceedings (“the CMS Application”). 38 Foot

In the  GENERAL DIVISION OFTHE  high court of the republic of singapore[2021] SGHC  106Magistrate’s Appeal No 9111 of 2019/01BetweenLim Hong Liang…  Appellant AndPublic Prosecutor…  Respondentgrounds of decision[Criminal Procedure and Sentencing]  —  [Disclosure] —  [Prosecution failing to disclose material]  —  [Consequences of Prosecution’s non-disclosure]      This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance

] — [Non  est  factum][Contract] — [Consideration]      This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in  LawNet  and/or the Singapore Law Reports.Muhammad  Yusoff  Shah  bin  KhmamarudinvMuhammad Taufiq Abdul Halim[2021] SGHCR 3General Division of the  High Court —  Suit No 751 of 2020 (Summons No 5367 of 2020)Kenneth Choo AR9 March 202126  April 2021    

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2022] SGHC 2Suit No 754 of 2020BetweenGravitas International Associates Pte LtdAndInvictus Group Pte LtdJudgment[Choses in Action] — [Assignment] — [Bare right to litigate] — [Maintenance and champerty][Choses in Action] — [Assignment] — [Contracts of employment] [Choses in Action] — [Assignment] — [Non-assignment clauses] — [Effect][Choses in Action] — [Assignment] — [Non-assignment clauses] — [Interpretation][Contract] — [Breach][Contract] — [Personal contracts] — [Assignability][Tort] — [Inducement of breach of contract

In the SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT of the republic of singapore[2021] SGHC(I) 8Suit No 5 of 2021BetweenMohamed Shiyam… PlaintiffAndTuff Offshore Engineering Services Pte Ltd … Defendantjudgment[Civil Procedure] — [Pleadings] — [Amendment][Civil Procedure] — [Parties] — [Joinder][Civil Procedure] — [Parties] — [Non-joinder][Companies] — [Incorporation of companies] — [Lifting corporate veil][Tort] — [Conspiracy]       

---

, and the rights to relief would not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions: at [90]. The Court also found that joinder was not necessary under O 15 r 6(2), and that the non-discretionary requirement of the “just and convenient” limb of that Rule was not satisfied because the conspiracy claims did not relate to an existing question or issue between the plaintiff and the defendant: at [92].16    The Court added that even if the non-discretionary requirement had been satisfied, it would not have allowed the joinder in the

In the  COURT OF APPEAL  of the republic of singapore[2021]  SGCA 36Civil Appeal No 152 of 2020BetweenTecnomar & Associates Pte Ltd… AppellantAndSBM Offshore N.V.…  RespondentIn the matter of Suit No 897 of 2019 (Registrar’s Appeal No 166 of 2020)BetweenTecnomar & Associates Pte Ltd… PlaintiffAndSBM Offshore N.V.…  DefendantGROUNDS OF DECISION[Civil Procedure] — [Service] — [Out of jurisdiction][Civil Procedure] — [Material non-disclosure] — [Setting aside][Civil Procedure] — [Costs] — [Indemnity costs]       This

---

holistic evidence placed before it. When non-disclosure is deliberate, it must be a special case for the court to exercise its discretion not to discharge the ex parte order. The Court will not hesitate to order costs on an indemnity basis in the face of unreasonable conduct by litigants who evince a flagrant disregard of their duty of full and frank disclosure owed to the Court. The existence of an appeal mechanism as of right should not be interpreted as giving litigants (and counsel) carte blanche to pursue arguments that are wholly unmeritorious, devoid of any legal and factual basis