ABC Company v XYZ Company Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeJudith Prakash J
Judgment Date08 May 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGHC 107
Citation[2003] SGHC 107
Date08 May 2003
Published date02 October 2003
Plaintiff CounselVK Rajah, SC, with Allen Choong and Priya Selvam (Rajan & Tann)
Docket NumberOriginating Motion No 600027 of (Summons in Chambers No 601646 of 2002)
Defendant CounselAlvin Yeo, SC, with Tay Peng Cheng (Wong Partnership)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Year2003

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
19 cases
  • Re Kotjo Johanes Budisutrisno, ex parte International Factors Leasing Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 June 2004
    ...grounds after the prescribed period of four months had lapsed. 6 In support of his argument, counsel referred me to ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd [2003] 3 SLR 546. In that case, the applicant sought leave to amend the originating motion to set aside an arbitration award. Under Art 34 of the UNCITRAL ......
  • Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd v Habibullah Coastal Power Company (Pte) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 February 2010
    ...of the Act. My reasons for rejecting this contention are set out below. The statutory provisions As I explained in ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546 at [3], art 34, Sch 1 of the Act deals with the recourse that a party to an arbitration has when he is not satisfied with an arbitral aw......
  • PT Pukuafu Indah v Newmont Indonesia Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 September 2012
    ...leave could provide some measure of residual protection for the rights of both parties: at [21] and [27].] ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd [2003] 3 SLR (R) 546; [2003] 3 SLR 546 (folld) Mohamed Ibrahim and Koshi Mohamed, Re Arbitration Between [1963] MLJ 32 (refd) PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v......
  • Kembang Serantau Sdn Bhd v Jeks Engineering Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2016
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
3 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...Ltd v Citus Trading Pte Ltd[2003] 3 SLR 1; Kiyue Co Ltd v Aquagen International Pte Ltd[2003] 3 SLR 130; ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd[2003] 3 SLR 546; PT Tugu Pratama Indonesia v Magma Nusantara Ltd[2003] 4 SLR 257; Teck Guan Sdn Bhd v Beow Guan Enterprises Pte Ltd[2003] 4 SLR 276; Jurong Engineerin......
  • Arbitration
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2019, December - January 2019
    • 1 December 2019
    ...2 SLR 131. 47 [2014] 1 SLR 372. 48 See paras 4.47–4.52 above. 49 See para 4.37 above. 50 The full text is cited at para 4.36 above. 51 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546. 52 [2012] 4 SLR 1157. 53 ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546 at [19]. 54 See para 4.32 above. 55 [2019] SGHC 260. 56 [2019] SGHC 18......
  • Arbitration
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...a process is to be distinguished from an appeal where the merits of the arbitral decision are being examined. 3.42 In ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd[2003] 3 SLR 546, the applicant and the respondent were the claimant and respondent respectively in an international arbitration conducted according to th......