Leonard Loh – Duane Morris and Selvam

May 21, 2025May 27, 2025 by Leonard Loh

Expert Evidence Under the Singapore Rules of Court 2021: Advantage Arbitration?

Key Takeaway: The need for an additional step (as required under the Singapore Rules of Court 2021) (“ROC 2021”) before being allowed to introduce expert evidence and the attendant additional costs and risks could reduce the attractiveness of litigation in Singapore in favour of arbitration. All should thus be aware of the additional complexities introduced by ROC 2021, and consider whether litigation under Singapore law remains the best solution in a dispute or if arbitration is the better option.

One of the changes made by ROC 2021 is to introduce court control over a party’s previously unrestricted right to introduce expert evidence. If a litigant wishes to introduce his own expert to give evidence, he has to convince the Court, among other things, that (1) expert evidence will contribute materially to the determination of any issue and (2) that the default rule that parties are to agree on one common expert should be departed.

While this change is welcomed when viewed through the lens of expeditious proceedings and efficient use of court resources (see Order 3, Rule 1(2) of the ROC 2021), it requires lawyers and (potential) litigants to grapple with the additional complexities of litigation in Singapore. This article will discuss a couple of such additional complexities and discuss whether they increase the attractiveness of arbitration, especially in complex disputes where expert evidence is an important, if not integral, part of the process.

May 8, 2024May 8, 2024 by Duane Morris and Selvam

Claimants Banding Together: Is There Always Strength in Numbers?

By Leonard Loh

Key Takeaway: While there are obvious advantages for potential claimants to band together, there are issues which must be fully considered in order for all potential claimants to make a considered decision. Independent legal advice is recommended, prudent and necessary before committing to a group litigation.

Potential claimants are now, more often and more effectively, harnessing the power of messaging apps, internet forums and social media to seek out others who have suffered similar plights under the hands of the same defendant(s), to organise themselves and to launch actions. However, it is important to ask: is there always strength in numbers?
Continue reading “Claimants Banding Together: Is There Always Strength in Numbers?”

July 14, 2023 by Duane Morris and Selvam

Multi-Year Modelling for Quantification of Delay Claims

Case Commentary

Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd and other appeals [2023] SGHC(A) 9

By Leonard Loh (Selvam LLC)

Takeaway: The issues of remoteness and what is in the reasonable contemplation of parties is a fact-sensitive exercise. Employers are thus encouraged to share with their main contractors (or main contractors with their sub-contractors) on the nature of the project and the potential knock-on effects of delay.

On 9 February 2023, the Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court issued its decision in Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd and other appeals [2023] SGHC(A) 9. While multiple issues relating to causation, remoteness, quantification and apportionment were discussed, one significant finding was the adoption of the multi-year model by the Appellate Division in quantifying the amount of damages payable by the main contractor to the employer for delay.

The dispute arose over delays in the construction of Biopolis 3, a seven-storey multi-tenanted business park development in One-North envisaged as a research and development hub for biomedical sciences institutes and organisations, offering specialised facilities such as wet laboratories, chemistry laboratories and an animal facility (at [3]). Following a trial and appeal on issues of liability, it was adjudged that the construction of Biopolis 3 was deemed to be delayed, with the Employer being responsible for 173 days of delay and the Main Contractor being responsible for 161 days of delay. One of the delay claims asserted by the Employer against the Main Contractor was for post-completion net rental revenue loss sustained even after Biopolis 3 was completed. Continue reading “Multi-Year Modelling for Quantification of Delay Claims”

July 13, 2023July 14, 2023 by Duane Morris and Selvam

Re-Emphasis on Early Recourse to Legal Counsel to Avoid Pitfalls in Arbitrability and Governing Law

Case Commentary

Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1

By Leonard Loh (Selvam LLC)

Takeaways: Parties must properly consider and expressly provide for the law of the arbitration agreement, and not merely treat it as a given that the proper law of the arbitration agreement would invariably be the proper law of the contract as expressly chosen by the parties.

Summary

On 6 January 2023, the Singapore Court of Appeal, being the highest Court level in Singapore, issued an illuminating judgment in Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1 (“Anupam Mittal”) on a key question that has not been dealt with definitively. The question posed to the Court of Appeal is as follows: what system of law determines, at the pre-award stage, whether a dispute is arbitrable or not.

The Singapore Court of Appeal endorsed the “composite approach”. The question of arbitrability is “in first instance, determined by the law that governs the arbitration agreement”. Notwithstanding, if the law of the seat regards a dispute as being non-arbitrable, the said law of the seat will also be applied to render the dispute non-arbitrable (at [55]). A Singapore court is allowed take cognisance of both the law of the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat because, in the Court of Appeal’s view, section 11(1) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (the “IAA”) requires a Singapore court to have regard to local and foreign public policy. Continue reading “Re-Emphasis on Early Recourse to Legal Counsel to Avoid Pitfalls in Arbitrability and Governing Law”