Singapore Court of Appeal applies unconscionability in nuanced manner as ground for injunction against call on performance bond pending arbitration *

Singapore - June 28 2012
The Singapore Court of Appeal has emphasised the importance of a high threshold for establishing unconscionability as a ground for restraining a call on a perfomance bond.

Co-authors: Eugene Ooi, Ho Chien Mien.

---

Singapore Court of Appeal finds authorised examiner under Workplace Safety and Health Act owes no common law duty of care to main contractor *

Singapore - April 27 2012
In the case of Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd & Ors, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether an authorised examiner ("AE") registered under the regime set out in the Workplace Safety and Health Act (the "WSHA") and its regulations (the "WSH Regime") owed a common law duty of care to a person to whom he owed no contractual obligation.

Co-authors: Ho Chien Mien.

---

Supreme Court consultation paper entitled "Review of Discovery in Civil Litigation" *

Singapore - November 1 2011
On 19 October 2011, the Supreme Court announced a public consultation entitled "Review of Discovery in Civil Litigation".

Co-authors: Ang Cheng Hock, SC.

---

Singapore High Court allows application to strike out plaintiff's claim for dismissal alleged to have been made unfairly and in bad faith *

Singapore - August 31 2011
The striking out application in the Singapore High Court case of Chan Miu Yin v Phillip Morris Singapore Pte Ltd raised the following interesting question: is it open to a former employee who was dismissed in accordance with the terms of the employment contract to pursue a claim, which is founded on allegations that the dismissal was made unfairly and in bad faith, against the former employer.

---

Singapore High Court considers the reasonableness of a party’s exclusion clauses for defect liability *

Singapore - January 26 2011
In Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 351, the Singapore High Court found that the plaintiff had not proven that the paint supplied by the defendant was defective.

---