Search Contact us Client Log-in Alumni | OFFICES: Malaysia China Lao PDR Vietnam Thailand Myanmar | LANGUAGES: 华语版 日本語

OUR EXPERIENCE Commercial Litigation Acted successfully for HSBC against the Plaintiffs who were former customers of the Bank in relation to margin Foreign Exchange (“FX”) trading. The main claim brought by the Plaintiffs involved a claim for damages of approximately USD2.9 million for breach of an alleged oral collateral agreement in relation to a FX transaction entered into by the Plaintiffs involving the purchase of USD 22 million worth of Euro. There were other claims relating to alleged breach of margin call procedure and misapplication of an unrealized loss limit as well as a claim for the balance amount allegedly due to the Plaintiffs in connection with a compensation agreement involving a separate FX trade in NZD. The High Court upheld the Bank’s submission of ‘No Case To Answer’, agreeing that the evidence led by the Plaintiffs at face value, did not establish a case in law. The Court therefore dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Bank with costs.  Successfully represented Island Concrete Pte Ltd against Sim Lian in the High Court in relation to problems arising from the 2007 ban on importation of sand from Indonesia. The suit involved breach of an oral compromise agreement reached between parties as a result of disputes arising from interruption of RMC supply as a result of the sand ban. The value of the underlying disputes that were compromised was estimated to be just under $1 million. [See Island Concrete Pte Ltd v. Sim Lian Construction Co (Pte) Ltd [2008] SGHC 245].  Advising a local securities house in respect of numerous claims arising out of the October 2008 financial meltdown which contributed to losses sustained by investors in certain series of Minibond Notes, Jubilee Notes and Pinnacle Notes arranged by Lehman Brothers Inc, Merrill Lynch (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Asia (Singapore) Pte respectively. Represented a defendant in the first reported case in Singapore dealing with the issue of duress [see Tam Tak Chuen v. Khairul bin Abdul Rahman and Others [2008] SGHC 242]. Acted for Australian journalist Mr Lloyd Peter Gerard in a high profile and widely reported case involving misuse of drugs in Singapore.  Mr. Lloyd was initially charged with five charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The first charge related to trafficking of Class A Drugs (which entailed a minimum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane) was later withdrawn by the DPP pursuant to arguments raised by counsel. The final sentence for the remaining charges totalled 10 months.  Acted for the principal defendant in a common law derivative action multiparty litigation involving claims for breach of directors’ fiduciary duties and knowing receipt brought against individuals and companies involved in the Indonesian timber industry. The claim amount was about S$12 – S$15 million.  Advising the owner of a US$79.5 million convertible loan note, with regard to litigation presently before the Singapore High Court brought by the holders of two notes of a combined principal value of US$17.5 million against inter alia the issuer of notes for breach of contract.  Acting for an Indonesian company in defending an arbitration involving competition law issues and alleged breach of contract in which a sum of about US$23 million is being claimed.  Acted for SingTel against the Indonesian competition watchdog Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU)'s ruling that SingTel had breached competition law and was involved in price-fixing in Indonesia.  Acted as counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2008 before the Court of Appeal, against the High Court’s decision in Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Deuter Sports GMBH [2008] SGHC 109, in a dispute concerning termination of a distributorship agreement between Sports Connection Private Limited and Deuter Sports GMBH. The case concerned the legal issue of whether a contractual provision against selling competing products was so fundamental a term that its breach would entitle the innocent party to treat the contract as discharged.  Acted successfully for the Law Society of Singapore in the current leading Singapore case on entrapment against a Singapore lawyer who was “caught” touting for work. She was represented by Mr Davinder Singh SC of Drew & Napier. [see Law Society of Singapore v. Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2008] 2 SLR 239]  Acted for an ex-employee being sued by her ex-employer for breach of non-competition and confidentiality clauses and claiming damages / account of profit amounting to about S$1.3 million.  Acting in the assessment of damages  for an investor in a High Court judgment against a Singapore public listed company for breach of an investment agreement. Obtaining a specific order in the High Court of Singapore against Receivers appointed under a BVI Order not to enforce such Order in Singapore against our client.  Acted successfully for money-brokers in obtaining a prohibitory injunction against an employee who had joined a Japanese competitor and further in enforcing the prohibitory injunction.  Acted for an international audit firm in respect of a claim for negligence / damages. The matter was settled and we were successful in defending an issue of costs that arose out of the settlement. Chandra Mohan also acted for the insurance brokers of a law firm in disputes arising out of a claim against a solicitor for negligence. Acted for BNP Paribas in presenting a statutory demand on Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (‘JSPL’), a wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore listed SembCorp Marine Ltd and one of the largest oil rig builders in the world. This high profile claim involves foreign exchange derivative losses in the aftermath of the currency turmoil in 2007. JSPL filed an application to restrain presentation of the winding up petition on the basis that the transactions were unauthorised and not valid or binding. The amount involved is approximately US$51 million. The issues litigated upon include, amongst others, questions of interpretation of provisions found in internationally adopted ISDA (International Swap Dealers Association, Inc) documentation.  Acting in a matter involving Morgan Stanley’s Pinnacle 9 & 10 notes, which are now worthless. Acted for a subsidiary of CapitaLand Limited, Ankerite Pte Ltd("Ankerite"), in the highly-publicised dispute involving the collective sale of Gillman Heights condominium for S$548 million. The STB approved the application for an order for the collective sale of Gillman Heights Condominium on 21 December 2007.  The objectors appealed to the High Court pursuant to section 98 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act vide OS 95/2008, OS 86/2008 and OS 88/2008, raising various issues of law for determination by the High Court.  Ankerite has since been allowed by the Court to intervene in these proceedings.  All three appeals were heard in March 2008.  A group of consenting subsidiary proprietors had also commenced proceedings alleging that the Collective Sale Agreement had expired prior to the approval granted by the STB.  Ankerite commenced proceedings against this group for breach of contract. Acted for parties in disputes surrounding the collective sale of Bel Air condominium.  Acted for the plaintiff, which operated an oil concession in Myanmar, in a recent High Court case and succeeded in arguing that Singapore (instead of Myanmar) was an appropriate forum for the resolution of a dispute. [see of Focus Energy Ltd v. Aye Aye Soe [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1086]. We went on to obtain judgment against the defendant for US$22.5 million. We successfully fended off a challenge by the defendant to the enforcement of the judgment: Focus Energy Ltd v Aye Aye Soe (Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore Branch, garnishee) and another matter [2010] SGHC 48. Advising international bank on potential litigation risks in relation to complaints brought by specific private banking customers against it in relation to investments made in certain Madoff-related funds.  Representing a group of local companies in about 10 related and ongoing civil suits in respect of investment and shareholder disputes.  Acting in a multi-million dollar and multi-suit matter in relation to contractual and maritime claims.  Successfully acting for home owners against the contractor in relation to defects: Wong Sow Fong & Anor v Forum Construction Pte Ltd [2007] SGDC 320. The contractor took the case all the way to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the District Judge. Successfully acting for an Australian corporate involved in the telematic industry, which is part of an English listed corporate, against its Singapore distributor. We obtained summary judgment against the defendant covering various injunctions, both prohibitory and mandatory, as well as an account of profits. The case was settled favourably thereafter.  Representing a healthcare group that operates hospitals in Asia in multi-party and multi-suit matter involving the purchase of a hospital in Indonesia.  Representing an individual and successfully fending off a claim in relation to the sale and purchase of shares in his company. The case is notable also because it appears to break new ground in Singapore on the need for a party seeking specific performance to satisfy the requirement of “reciprocity: Indulge Food Pte Ltd v Bahram Torabi Marashi [2010] SGHC 22 Acting for one of the defendants in an on-going representative action by former members of the Sijori Resort on Sentosa.  Acting for Lehman Brothers Singapore Private Limited in the defence of an action by individual investors alleging misrepresentations in the prospectus for the S$10 billion notes programme issued by Minibond Limited.   Advising the liquidators of various Lehman Brothers entities in Asia (ex-Japan) in respect of disputes arising following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.   Advising and acting for various Lehman Brothers entities in Asia (ex-Japan) in Nomura’s acquisition of Lehman’s franchises in Asia-Pacific. Defended a local bank against a highly-publicized claim for breach of mandate brought in the name of a 92-year old customer diagnosed with dementia. This case is believed to be the first case in Singapore that has involved issues of elderly fraud and undue influence. It will also be the first case to ouch on the statutory provisions relating to mental capacity in the new Singapore Mental Capacity Act 2008. Acting for Beckkett Pte Ltd against Deutsche Bank and PT Dianlia Setyamukti ('DSM') for the return of its 40% stake in coal miner PT Adaro Indonesia, as well as PT Indonesia Bulk Terminal ('IBT'), which Deutsche sold in November 2001 to DSM.  The shares were sold after a borrower, Asminco, defaulted on a multi-million dollar bridging loan from Deutsche in 1997.  This loan was secured by a corporate guarantee from Beckkett backed by pledged shares in Adaro and IBT.  Beckkett's case is that Deutsche breached its mortgagee duty by selling the shares without its knowledge and at prices far below market value.  In terms of monetary value, the claim brought ran into hundreds of millions and represents one of the largest claims to have been commenced in our local courts in the last decade. Acted successfully for some foreign funds which altogether held a 40% share in a Cyprus company listed on the Norwegian stock exchange.  This entity (which was the holding company) and its subsidiaries including a Singapore company, was in the business of acquiring oil rigs, refurbishing them and entering into oil-related contracts.  The majority shareholder of the Cyprus entity, who had wanted to take the entity private, had acquired his majority stake using funds raised through certain collateralised equity leveraged loan securities (“CELLS”) created by a major international financial institution.  The transaction was for a total sum of US$360 million of which US$185 million of notes were issued and taken up to fund the aforesaid acquisition.  The funds under the CELLS notes were loaned to the majority shareholder on terms that the shareholder would cause the Cyprus entity and its subsidiaries, including the Singapore company, to adopt, ratify and implement certain things including: (1) the securitisation of the future income of the Cyprus entity and its subsidiaries, including the Singapore company, towards the repayment of the notes and the interest thereon; and (2) a prohibition against the declaration of any dividends or the entry into new business until such time when the notes are paid.  We applied successfully for injunctive relief to restrain the implementation of the CELLS transaction, which would constitute financial assistance under Singapore law insofar as the Singapore entity was concerned.  Action was also commenced on the basis of, inter alia, a conspiracy relating to, inter alia, a fraud on a power (the fraudulent use of majority power) and/or fraud on a minority, and that the CELLS transaction and the proposed whitewash of the financial assistance (insofar as they relate to oppressive terms), are instruments of fraud.  Given the role of the financial institution, it was named as a party.  Relief was also sought on the basis of restitution/unjust enrichment relating to the fees received by the institution for its role in the financing.  This highly complex case involved the double lifting of corporate veils, the application of the corporate reflective loss principle and allegations of wrongful and illegal financial assistance as well as conspiracy to cause a fraud on minority shareholders by the various individuals and entities involved.  Although the matter was in the event amicably resolved, had it gone to trial, it would have been a landmark case not only in relation to the above legal issues but also for the securitisation industry.   Acted successfully in an appeal for the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in its precedent-setting case in the Court of Appeal in overruling an earlier High Court decision both on the facts and on the law in a complex judicial review application on issues of bias, fettering of discretion, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural impropriety revolving around unpaid motor vehicle taxes due to the Registrar of Vehicles of more than $7 million which were owed by Komoco Motors Pte Ltd, the local agent for Hyundai motor vehicles.  Acted for Madam Louise Wiryadi, in a fight with her step-children over her late husband’s assets in several countries that are estimated to be worth more than S$100 million.  Acted for a group of beneficiaries in China who successfully staked a claim to a tycoon’s estate more than 75 years after the tycoon’s death in Singapore in 1926. It dealt with marriage laws and practices from the Qing dynasty and succession rights in the British colony. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court allowing the beneficiaries’ claim.  Successfully acted in a Court of Appeal matter for Singapore Technologies Kinetics Limited ("STK") in September 2007. In this case, STK brought a S$5 million claim against the guarantor of a Sri Lankan company that failed to refund investment funds for a proposed fuel-emulsion technology joint venture project. A worldwide Mareva injunction was obtained against the guarantor before an application for summary judgment against him was filed. At first instance, summary judgment was obtained in favour of STK but upon the guarantor’s appeal to a Judge in chambers, leave to defend was granted on the condition that security for the full sum claimed was furnished : Singapore Technologies Kinetics Ltd v Eco Fuels Solutions Asia, Inc and Others [2007] SGHC 103 (High Court). Judgment against the guarantor was subsequently obtained when the security ordered was not furnished. On further appeal by the guarantor, who sought unconditional leave to defend or the lowering of the security ordered by the High Court, the Court of Appeal (comprising Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang JA and VK Rajah JA) unanimously rejected the arguments made by lawyers for the guarantor, and dismissed the appeal.  Defended the American Express Bank (the 'Bank') against a major claim by Madam Susilawati, a wealthy Indonesian customer of the Bank’s private banking division. She sued the Bank, demanding that it return US$17.5 million of her money drawn down to offset trading losses incurred by her son-in-law, Mr Lim Thian Long, pursuant to a third party pledge (the ‘Third Party Pledge’) which Madam Susilawati had signed, to guarantee Mr Lim’s debts to the Bank. Madam Susilawati’s claim was dismissed with costs.  Acting for members of the former Board of Directors in one of the largest litigation to take place in Malaysia – the RM1.4 billion suit brought by the RHB Group of Companies against Tan Sri Rashid Hussain and others.  Acting for all the major ready-mixed concrete suppliers in Singapore in relation to problems arising from the Indonesian government’s decision in 2007 to ban the export of sand to Singapore as well as the Indonesian Navy’s actions in stopping barges from carrying granite aggregate to Singapore. The sand ban sent shock waves through the local construction industry depended predominantly on the supply of sand from Indonesia.  Successfully defended an audit firm against the claim by its former client for allegedly failing to detect, through their audits, fraud committed by the former directors and officers of the client company.  This is a landmark case dealing with the perimeters of an auditor’s obligations and duties to its client where fraud committed by its client’s officers are discovered at a later stage. Acted for Tatler Singapore in a dispute with Prestige Magazine involving allegations of malicious falsehood and infringement of trademark in relation to the publication of certain survey results.  This case involves the novel issue of fair use of a trademark in comparative advertising.  Acting for a public listed company in Singapore in a multi-million dollar claim started in 2006 against a Sri Lankan company and its director for the recovery of investment funds in relation to a fuel-emulsion technology joint venture project.  Acted for the Banyan Tree Group in relation to their US$35 million dollar claim against their insurers for property damage and business interruption claims arising from the 26 December 2004 tsunamis that affected the coasts of the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Phuket (Thailand).  Acted for a major general insurer who was the Contractors' All Risks insurer of the main contractor of a skyscraper development in Singapore's central business district in the 'tilting' building case due to alleged inadequate foundation works. The claims exceed S$66 million. Defending beneficiaries of the estate of a deceased Indonesian businessman in a High Court claim by the foreign executrix for the delivery of certain assets retained by the clients in Singapore. The assets in question are alleged to be held on resulting trust for the deceased and valued at more than S$50 million. Clients have, in turn, brought a counterclaim against the executrix for accounts and inquiries into the estate and for an order for distribution of assets. This matter involves complex private international law issues as well as questions of Indonesian as well as Australian law given that proceedings were commenced in various jurisdictions between the parties : Murakami Takako (executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, deceased) v Wiryadi Louise Maria and Others  [2007] 4 SLR 565 (Court of Appeal); [2007] SGHC 6 (High Court).  Acting in a multi-million dispute involving the estates of the patriarch and matriarch of a eminent Singapore family involving assets / properties in Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and elsewhere in the world. In related proceedings, the Singapore High Court has ordered the winding up of three family companies set up by the patriarch during his lifetime even though they were profitably run, on the grounds that the relationship between the three surviving male siblings had deteriorated so badly and had become so litigious that it was best to wind up the companies so that the brothers could go their separate ways. The High Court also accepted for the first time that the family companies should be wound up to enable the administration of the estate of the family patriarch, since the fate of the estate was closely intertwined with the fortunes of the companies. Acted successfully for The Law Society of Singapore before the Court of 3 Judges for the admission of video and audio recordings surreptitiously taken by a private investigator. This case is now the leading case in Singapore on the treatment of entrapment evidence.  Advised Australian solicitors who act for a group of insurers on Singapore Law (with a view to giving expert evidence in the Australian High Court) who are in litigation in Australia, (S$11.2 million) over rights of contribution under a C.A.R. policy from another insurer in respect of a Deep Tunnel Strategic Sewerage contract in Singapore.  Giving expert evidence of Singapore law before the Malaysian Courts on a syndicated loan, guarantees, assignment and novation.  Acted for consultant process engineers, Lockwood Greene/CH2M in an action by McConnell Dowell SEA Ltd over a Sucrose Factory on Jurong Island. The amount claimed by McConnell Dowell was S$30.6 million.  Advised a group of insurers over the quantum of indemnity (partial or total loss basis) under an All Risks Liability Policy for fire damage (estimated at approximately S$12 to S$18 million) to two air preheaters of a power station.   Advised a group of insurers disputing their insured's claim under  a comprehensive machinery breakdown insurance policy for extensive damage to their boiler and turbine in a power station. The amount of the insured's claim was over SGD51 million.  Advised a statutory corporation over a dispute with its lessee over its lease/hotel on Sentosa Island.    Appointed by the Supreme Court to act as lead counsel at the end of last year in a landmark case involving a point of law as to whether a present vexatious litigant statute extended to both civil as well as criminal proceedings. The Solicitor General argued the matter on behalf of the Attorney General's Chambers.  Acting for a private educational organization as lead counsel in a high-profiled High Court suit against a consumer watchdog for damages for breach of contract arising out of an alleged wrongful suspension of an accreditation status.  Acting for a foreign bank in resisting a claim by the Filipino listed corporate in relation to the sale of a debt. As defendant, we applied to determine the action summarily on the basis of Order 14A. The court determined the action summarily in our client’s favour and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The decision is reported at Metro Alliance Holdings & Equities Corp v WestLB [2008] 1 SLR(R) 139.       © 2010 Rajah & Tann LLP. All rights reserved. Rajah & Tann LLP (Registration No. T08LL0005E) is registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A) with limited liability. Rajah & Tann LLP is a Singapore Law Firm with highly rated legal services across Asia.