Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd and Another

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date09 January 2002
Date09 January 2002
Docket NumberSuit No 146 of 2001 (Registrar's
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
    • 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
4 cases
  • Orient Centre Investments Ltd v Société Générale
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 9 May 2007
    ...Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] 2 Lloyd's Rep 511 (refd) Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd [2002] 1 SLR (R) 44; [2002] 4 SLR 953 (folld) Valse Holdings SA v Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd [2004] EWHC 2471 (refd) Evidence Act (Cap 97,1997 Rev Ed)s......
  • Orient Centre Investments Ltd and Another v Societe Generale
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 9 May 2007
    ...61 In our view, it was not too late for SG to make its striking out application on 1 March 2006: see Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd [2002] 4 SLR 953, at 62 In ground (6), the appellants contended that SG has not satisfied the threshold requirements of O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 32......
  • VBH Singapore Pte Ltd v Technobuilt Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 May 2013
    ...should be made as soon as possible, a late application is not doomed to failure (see Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd and another [2002] 1 SLR(R) 44 at [66], approved in Orient Centre Investments Ltd and another v Societe Generale [2007] 3 SLR(R) 566 (“Orient Centre”) at [61]). Although the W......
  • Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 10 December 2018
    ...lateness of the application was concerned, as noted by the Deputy Registrar, the High Court decision of Tapematic SpA v Wiarana Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC5 had held that a late application was not doomed to failure. The court there had also struck out the pleadings after the affidavits of evidence......
2 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...9.24, 9.28 and 9.91, with regard to “Implied terms”, “Exception clauses” and “Remedies” respectively); Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd[2002] 4 SLR 953 (also referred to infra, at para 9.46 with regard to “Misrepresentation”); and Trigen Industries Ltd v Sinko Technologies Pte Ltd[2003] 1 SLR......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 December 2007
    ...case against the respondent had no basis (at [62]—[64]). The Court of Appeal cited the principles in Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd[2002] 4 SLR 953 concerning the time of application; Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin[1998] 1 SLR 374 concerning the merits of the application; and Chok......