JBE Properties Pte
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 2010 |
| Date | 03 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 63 of 2010 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
41 cases
-
BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd
...on-demand performance bonds), and we agreed that this was so based on the true construction of the instrument. As was held by this court in JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 47 (“JBE”) at [17]: The threshold question for the purposes of ascertaining the nature of the Bond......
-
York International Pte Ltd v Voltas Ltd
...of Appeal cases of Master Marine AS v Labroy Offshore Ltd[2012] 3 SLR 125 (‘Master Marine’) and JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd[2011] 2 SLR 47 (‘JBE’) were reconcilable. In JBE, the court compared the language of the underlying contract to the language used in the performance bond, ......
-
AXA S.A. v Genworth Financial International Holdings, Inc.
... ... (4) An instrument containing an obligation to pay for losses actually sustained or incurred by the obligee is not a performance bond, even if expressed to be payable “on demand”, but is instead a form of indemnity, relying on JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 46 at [19]. (5) A performance bond is referrable to the obligee's loss but is not necessarily or solely referable to loss – the obligee may recover a sum that does not correspond to its loss or even claim where it has suffered no loss at all, ... ...
-
Bom v Bok
...it breaches its primary contractual obligations to the beneficiary” [emphasis in original]: see JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 47 at [10]. Whilst unconscionability in that context bears some resemblance to unconscionability in relation to fact situations such as that i......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Off the Beaten Track - The URDG 758 Bypass
...(at [85]). Unconscionability Citing both Singapore Court of Appeal decisions (at [98]-[99]) in JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 47 and BS Mount Sophia v Join-Am Pte Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 352, the courts in the First Instance Circuit noted that while the defence of unconsciona......
7 books & journal articles
-
Security for performance
...Ltd v Jan De Nul NV [2010] EWHC 3362 (Comm) at [49], per Beatson J (airmed [2011] BLR 535 (CA)); JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 47 at [17]; BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 28 at [3]; Spliethof ’s Bevracthingskantoor BV v Bank of China Ltd [2015] ......
-
Banking Law
...v Bakri Navigation Co Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 167 at [85]. 77 See paras 5.27–5.30 above. 78 See, eg, JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 47 and BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 352. 79 See paras 5.42–5.43 below. 80 [2020] 2 SLR 955. 81 Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed. ......
-
Building and Construction Law
...Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 165 at [126]. 30 [2021] 3 SLR 571. 31 CEX v CEY [2021] 3 SLR 571 at [10]; JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 47 at [11]. 32 CEX v CEY [2021] 3 SLR 571 at [11], referring to principles enumerated in Master Marine AS v Labroy Offshore Ltd [2012] 3 SLR 125......
-
Case Note
...10BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd[2012] 3 SLR 352. See generally [23]–[37]. 11[1999] 3 SLR(R) 961. 12[1999] 3 SLR(R) 44. 13[2011] 2 SLR 47. 14 [2000] 1 SLR(R) 117 at [42]. The Court of Appeal noted that: We do not think it is possible to define ‘unconscionability’ other than to g......
Request a trial to view additional results