Claimants Banding Together: Is There Always Strength in Numbers?

joined hands

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?”

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”

Selvam LLC Secures Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal for Singaporean Director

SINGAPORE, 15 May 2023―Selvam LLC achieved a significant outcome in the case of Goh Toh Heng, an elderly director charged with acquiring ill-gotten gains totaling over $405,000. Goh has been granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, while the possibility of future prosecution remains if new evidence emerges. Continue reading “Selvam LLC Secures Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal for Singaporean Director”


2022年8月,在美国洛杉矶的一家名为圣安东尼酒庄诉某嘉兴公司商标侵权纠纷一案的上诉中,美国联邦第九巡回法院推翻了原审法院的错误结论,裁定《兰哈姆法》(the “Lanham Act”)第1051(e)条的送达程序不仅适用于美国专利及商标局(下称“USPTO”)的行政程序,同样也适用于法院程序,即针对外国公司的商标诉讼可直接向USPTO完成送达。


Continue reading “美第九巡回法院开启商标诉讼送达新途径——外国被告亦可通过USPTO完成送达”

Selvam LLC Welcomes Director Jerald Foo to Firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group

Singapore, 14 November 2022―Jerald Foo has joined Selvam LLC as a Director in the firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group at its Singapore office. Jerald focuses his practice on commercial litigation, arbitration and mediation, having significant experience with complex commercial disputes both as a practitioner in a leading international law firm and as a former judicial officer.

Continue reading “Selvam LLC Welcomes Director Jerald Foo to Firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group”

양식 싸움 The Battle of the Forms

무역 금융의 세계는 결코 간단하지 않습니다. 여러 기관, 경쟁 청구, 상계 (set-offs), 임무, 채무와 많은 관계 당사자들이 이루고 있습니다. 이 복잡한 환경을 탐색하는 것은 굉장히 어렵고, 수많은 법적 문제와 불확실성을 야기합니다.

CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19의 사례에서 이 복잡함이 명백하게 드러납니다. 이 특정 사례에서는 항소법원이 고등법원과 완전히 반대되는 결론에 도달했습니다.  이 사례는 복잡한 다자간 무역금융계약의 어려움(downfall)을 강조하며, 법원의 계약서 해석에 대한 지침을 제공합니다. 법원은 문서의 진위 여부, 진위 입증 방식에 대한 요점을 고려하지만, 이번 기고문은 문제의 핵심인 무역금융 계약의 싸움에 초점을 맞출 것입니다.

Continue reading “양식 싸움 The Battle of the Forms”

The Battle of the Forms

The world of trade finance is never straightforward. Multiple facilities, competing claims, set-offs, assignments, debentures and multiple parties are, to the say the least, what make the backbone of trade finance.  Navigating this complex landscape is tough, and raises a plethora of legal issues and uncertainties.

This complex landscape is evident in the case of CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19, where the Court of Appeal considered and analysed the same issues of diametrically opposite competing contracts, and arrived at a completely opposite conclusion than that of the High Court.

Continue reading “The Battle of the Forms”

To Hedge or not to Hedge? That is the (mitigatory) question.

Hedging contracts are well established in the Oil & Gas industry.  It is a common risk management measure used to reduce a party’s exposure to the constantly fluctuating oil prices.  Essentially, under a hedging contract, companies can establish their prices at a fixed price through a commodity swap or option. Hedging contracts are second nature to the industry, and most traders would not give a second thought as to whether such arrangements are reasonable.  However, it was this very issue that was put forth before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Apex Energy International Pte Ltd v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 138.  The Singapore Courts had to determine whether, following a breach of contract of sale, whether a hedging arrangement was a reasonable mitigation in the quantification of the aggrieved parties losses.  We successfully acted for Apex Energy in proving that a hedging arrangement is a reasonable mitigation measure.

Continue reading “To Hedge or not to Hedge? That is the (mitigatory) question.”

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress