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
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY 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

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 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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT