Leading Building and Construction Law Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore

The Appellate Division, in an ex tempore judgment delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD, allowed BH's appeal and set aside the reduction of $155,160.

The court allowed Pro-Active's claim in part, giving judgment for $179,151.04 with interest at 5.33% per annum from 6 November 2021 until payment, instead of the $558,559.97 claimed.

Lee Seiu Kin J allowed the application in part on the ground of fraud.

The Appellate Division allowed the appeal in part.

Wong Li Kok, Alex J allowed the appeal and overturned the order restraining the management corporation from accepting LOAs in breach of the 2% Proxy Rule, holding that the rule applies only to…

The Appellate Division, in an ex tempore judgment delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD, allowed BH's appeal and set aside the reduction of $155,160.

Lee Seiu Kin J allowed the application in part on the ground of fraud.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

Kwek Mean Luck J allowed Terrenus's claims in part, awarding nominal damages of $1,500 for each of the embedment and clearance breaches, $912 for six insufficiently ground roots and $30,600 in…

The court allowed Calpeda's claim for $683,147.92 with interest at 5.33% per annum from service of the writ to judgment, and dismissed Chew Construction's counterclaim in full.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

The Appellate Division, in an ex tempore judgment delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD, allowed BH's appeal and set aside the reduction of $155,160.

Lee Seiu Kin J allowed the application in part on the ground of fraud.

The Appellate Division, in an ex tempore judgment delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD, allowed BH's appeal and set aside the reduction of $155,160.

Lee Seiu Kin J allowed the application in part on the ground of fraud.

The High Court allowed BH's application.

The court allowed Pro-Active's claim in part, giving judgment for $179,151.04 with interest at 5.33% per annum from 6 November 2021 until payment, instead of the $558,559.97 claimed.

The court allowed Calpeda's claim for $683,147.92 with interest at 5.33% per annum from service of the writ to judgment, and dismissed Chew Construction's counterclaim in full.

The Appellate Division allowed CA 87 in part and allowed CA 88 in part.

The High Court allowed the application, holding that the demand on the performance bond was not valid and that HSBC Life was not obliged to pay on it on the basis of the SO's decision or…

The High Court allowed the application.

District Judge Tay Jingxi allowed the claim in part, awarding $13,664.13, made up of $4,314.13 under Invoice 22003 and $9,350 under Invoice 23004.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error in fact or law and no question of principle or importance.

The Appellate Division (Woo Bih Li, Kannan Ramesh and See Kee Oon JJAD) dismissed Terrenus's appeal and allowed Attika's cross-appeal.

Kwek Mean Luck J allowed Terrenus's claims in part, awarding nominal damages of $1,500 for each of the embedment and clearance breaches, $912 for six insufficiently ground roots and $30,600 in…

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $30,400 inclusive of disbursements.

The High Court dismissed the application to set aside the adjudication determination and ordered costs of $13,000 all-in to Mega Team.

The court rejected DG's request to deduct the remaining sums, holding that the point had not been pleaded or run at trial.

The Appellate Division allowed the appeal in part.

The High Court held that the review panel was entitled, and bound, to review the entire adjudication determination, so it had misdirected itself.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

The court allowed the club's claim and the contractor's counterclaim in part.

The High Court dismissed all three of LBD's applications, SUM 3720, SUM 3715 and SUM 3719.

The High Court allowed the claim in part.

The High Court allowed the claim in part.

The High Court allowed the claim in part.

The District Court allowed the claim in part.

The District Court allowed the claim in part.

The High Court allowed Arki-Tech's claim in part.

The court dismissed both the claimant's claim and the defendant's counterclaim.

The Magistrate's Court allowed the application and ordered SAL to release the stakeholding sum of $46,537.50 to the developer.

The District Court dismissed the claim, finding that the owners had not proven that the contractor performed either the vibration-causing works or the initial repair works negligently.

The court allowed DMC's claims for all six backcharges and for liquidated damages of $888,300 (excluding GST), and dismissed DMD's counterclaim.

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in its entirety and ordered EH to pay CJY costs of $35,000 all-in, including disbursements, with the usual consequential orders.