Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 1991 |
| Date | 25 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | Originating Motion No 9 of 1991 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
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
11 cases
-
Tan Soo Giem v Yeo Ching Chua
... ... On the authority of Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson [1991] 2 MLJ 501, the Deputy Registrar ruled ... ...
-
Anwar Siraj v Ting Kang Chung John
...is made after the deadline for the aforesaid, the application has to be made to the Court of Appeal – see Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson [1991] SLR 578. 28 However, in the present case, although no formal application was made by the appellants to court asking for an extension of time to ser......
-
Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin
...motion as he had decided that the application to extend time must be made to the Court of Appeal. [SeeChen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson [1991] 1 SLR (R) 348.] On 28 February 1991, a fresh Originating Motion No 19 of 1991 was filed by the wife. On 5 April 1991 Chao Hick Tin J sitting as a singl......
-
Vettath v Vettath
... ... Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen Edwin [1991] 2 SLR (R) 260; [1991] SLR ... ...
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Civil Procedure
...for leave to appeal to itself under O 55D rr 4(2) and 4(3). The High Court distinguished the case of Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson[1991] SLR 578 on the basis that there was no equivalent provision of the present s 21(1) of the SCJA nor O 55D rr 4(2) and 4(3) when that case was decided. 6.3......