SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 MarsdenLR 1826

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MANN HOLDINGS PTE LTD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
UNG YOKE HONG – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Wong Guo Bin,Lim Kong Soon ,Respondent Advocate: Justin Voon,Chiam Jia Yan

Mary Lim Thiam Suan JCA:

[1] Pursuant to s 5 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 [Act 99] ("the Act"), the respondent successfully applied, vide encl 10, to set aside an earlier order of the High Court made on 29 January 2018. By that earlier order, a judgment pronounced by the High Court of Singapore in Case No: HC/JUD 742/2017 on 15 December 2017 was registered pursuant to s 4 of the Act. This appeal is in respect of that decision made under s 5 of the Act.

[2] After hearing extensive submissions from the parties, both oral and written, and upon careful consideration of those submissions, the grounds of decision and the records of appeal, and the applicable law, we were unanimous in our decision that the learned judge had plainly erred in granting the order sought. The appeal was consequently allowed with costs, and the decision of the High Court dated 4 June 2018 was thereby set aside. These are our reasons in full.

Chronology Of Events

[3] The background events leading up to the registration of the judgment are necessary for a proper understanding and appreciation of the arguments canvassed in this appeal.

[4] On 19 June 2015, the appellants sued the respondent bef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top