Tomongo Shipping Company Ltd v Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | Suit No 1676 of 1996 (Summons in |
| Date | 31 January 1997 |
| 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
4 cases
-
Projector SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd (No 3)
...release. Thus, the issue of an IMI in such a case was prima facie in order: see Tomongo Shipping Co Ltd v Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd [1997] 2 SLR 550 (“Tomongo”) at [21] and [22] and McIntosh v Dalwood (No 4) (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 415 at 418. The arrest and detention of the vessel would not o......
- Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and Another
-
Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd v Tomongo Shipping Co Ltd
...aside the injunctions was heard before Warren LH Khoo J. The learned judge after hearing full arguments dismissed the application. [See [1997] 2 SLR 550.] Against the decision of the learned judge the appellants have now appealed. They filed the notice of appeal only on 31 October 1996, whi......
-
Projector SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd
...go into the full merits of the case. It is not a matter of simply deciding whether Tomongo Shipping Co Ltd v Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd [1997] 2 SLR 550 was rightly 10 So as not to be misunderstood, I am not agreeing with Mr Asokan that the interim order should not have been granted becaus......