Fu Loong Lithographer Pte Ltd v Mun Hean Realty Pte Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | Originating Summons No 219 of 1986 |
| Date | 27 February 1989 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your 7-day Trial
5 cases
- Ho Yoke Kwei v Chee Mian Poon
-
[2010] 2 SLR 896
...Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (folld) Fenner v Blake [1900] 1 QB 426 (refd) Fu Loong Lithographer Pte Ltd v Mun Hean Realty Pte Ltd [1989] 1 SLR (R) 194; [1989] SLR 300 (refd) Hartley v Hymans [1920] 3 KB 475 (refd) Teng Ah Kow v Ho Sek Chiu [1993] 3 SLR (R) 43; [1993] 3 SLR 769 (folld) Thoma......
-
Lam Chi Kin David v Deutsche Bank AG
...(“Bower”) at p 481, para XIV.2.41. W J Alan was referred to by Grimberg JC in Fu Loong Lithographer Pte Ltd v Mun Hean Realty Pte Ltd [1989] 1 SLR(R) 194 at 204. The learned Judicial Commissioner observed that there has been “a divergence of judicial opinion as to whether the alteration in ......
- Re Karisma Thakurdas Jethwani; Ex p Malayan Banking Bhd
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Contract Law
...in view of the more equivocal position taken by the Singapore High Court in Fu Loong Lithographer Pte Ltd v Mun Hean Realty Pte Ltd[1989] SLR 300. In that case, Grimberg JC appeared, on the one hand, to have endorsed the requirement for detriment as a necessary element of the doctrine but a......
