Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd (Direct Services (HK) Ltd, Third Party)

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Judgment Date21 February 2006
Docket NumberMagistrate's Court Suit No 16197 (Registrar's Appeal from the Subordinate Courts No 25 of 2005)
Date21 February 2006

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
13 cases
  • Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 13 October 2008
    ...supporting particulars, must be pleaded and proved like any other fact (see Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd [2006] 2 SLR 268 (“Emjay”)). It was decided in Emjay (at [31]) that O 18 r 13(4) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the 2004 ROC”) did not ......
  • Sun Technosystems Pte Ltd v Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 8 November 2006
    ...the Singapore High Court decision of Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd (Direct Services (HK) Ltd, Third Party) [2006] 2 SLR 268 (“Emjay Enterprises”), as follows (at The legal effect of [the decision of the House of Lords in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transpor......
  • Kay Lim Construction & Trading Pte Ltd v Soon Douglas (Pte) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 September 2012
    ...Piling Pte Ltd v Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 246 (refd) Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd [2006] 2 SLR (R) 268; [2006] 2 SLR 268 (refd) Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd [2006] 1 SLR (R) 927; [2006] 1 SLR 927 (refd) Fras......
  • Seiko Epson Corporation v Sepoms Technology PTE Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 16 November 2007
    ...of patent infringement should be explored at the outset. As observed in Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd [2006] 2 SLR 268 (“Emjay”) (at The line between theory and practice is often a fine one and, in any event, one ought never to gainsay the role that rigorous the......
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2012, December 2012
    • 1 December 2012
    ...accepted by the High Court in Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd (Direct Services (HK) Ltd, third party)[2006] 2 SLR(R) 268 (‘Emjay Enterprises’) – was raised in a few cases in 2012. In Kay Lim Construction & Trading Pte Ltd v Soon Douglas (Pte) Ltd[2013] 1 SLR 1 (‘K......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...as long as the applicable limitation period has not expired (at [16]). 7.69 In Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd[2006] 2 SLR 268, the High Court did not permit a defence to be amended for the purpose of the assessment of damages (interlocutory judgment had already b......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...exception and limitation clauses were considered in the High Court decision of Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd[2006] 2 SLR 268. The issue before the court was whether a contracting party could argue that an exception clause could nevertheless be introduced at the ......