There was a problem sending you an sms. Check your phone number or try again later.
We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
\u2013 Who is the contract with? E.g. who is the employer \u2013 grp companies may also be a prob \u2013 diff pple work in
idff companies at diff pts in time and may have different contracts ie diff employers so who to sue? (i.e.:
Employment contract - who is the employer of your client) Example: When Japanese MNCs sent an employee
to work for another company, the employment contract continues to be with the MNC, and not the company to
which the employee was seconded. It is important to determine who is the employer in the contract of
Joint tortfeasors \u2013 open to you to join all tortfeasors, play safe and let them run the defence. There may be
serious factual disputes that you cannot resolve. Cost orders may be complicated \u2013 someone may become
insolvent. Eg if inter se def to pay each other, then plaintiff not at risk if one goes bust, but plaintiff may take
credit risk of one party going bust if sue alterantive defendants. It is important not to neglect joining all the
tortfeasors in the action, as there is a 3 years limitation period.
Facts: In this case, the plaintiff was the wife of the deceased, and she had commenced an action against the
defendants less than 6 months after the death of her husband \u2013 but before she had extracted the letters of
administration. (In most cases, the widow would have applied for the letters of administration, and would
therefore have the power to commence an action in the deceased spouse\u2019s name.)
Argument: Whether S.20(4) Civil Law Act should be given a conjunctive or disjunctive interpretation. It was
argued that the plaintiff was starting legal action even though she had not applied for the letters of
administration \u2013 so she had no locus standi
Lai Siu Chiu J held: That the 2 limbs in S.20(4) Civil Law Act should be read disjunctively. The plaintiff was not prevented from commencing the action by lack of locus standi. This mere irregularity should not prevent the plaintiff from suing.
\u2022 Facts: Some of the Plaintiffs had assigned their rights and interest in their apartments to various financial
institutions. The apartment block collapsed and the Plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants for
negligence. Bank takes mortgage but not total title \u2013 title passes nearer ompletion. Bet time of purchase and
completion, lag period where title belongs to developer but have already bought equitable interest. So in this
context \u2013 title not fully passed.
Held : James Foong J; court sympathetic. On a literal interpretation, there was an assignment of all the
plaintiffs\u2019 rights in the property to the financial institutions. However, he construed the assignment as being an
equitable mortgage or charge \u2013 that the Plaintiffs had not assigned their interests absolutely to the financial
institutions. As such, Plaintiffs did have locus standi to pursue the claim.
\u2022 Creativity with causes of action \u2013 merely because seldom used does not mean that they do not apply. We should think \u2018creatively\u2019 about all the causes of action available; determine which are the best causes of action to pursue. (i.e.: economic torts / restitution / breach of statutory, fiduciary duty etc.)
/restitution \u2013 seems an amorphous concept. Judges also not very clear. Usually concept of unjust enrichnment. This is how law can develeop and causes of action be used to surmount potential probs in pleadings! /breach of statutory duty
filled in, case theory developed. Also to make sure that can stand up to cross examination. Now practice of having affidavits is good, lawyer knows what witneses will say. By determining the full facts from the client, you can better determine the best cause of action to pursue.
(3) Enforcement of award
(4) Action to recover money by virtue of any written law other than penalty or forfeiture
Note: This general rule applies to non-injury claims. The limitation period for personal injury claims is 3 years.
date on which the cause of action accrued:
(a) actions founded on a contract or on tort;
(b) actions to enforce a recognizance;
(c) actions to enforce an award;
(d) actions to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any written law other than a penalty or forfeiture or sum
by way of penalty or forfeiture.
(2) An action for an account shall not be brought in respect of any matter which arose more than 6 years before
the commencement of the action.
(3) An action upon any judgment shall not be brought after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the
judgment became enforceable and no arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after
the expiration of 6 years from the date on which the interest became due.
(4) An action to recover any penalty or forfeiture or sum by way of penalty or forfeiture recoverable by virtue of
any Act or other written law shall not be brought after the expiration of one year from the date on which the
cause of action accrued.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), \u201cpenalty\u201d shall not include a fine to which a person is liable on conviction
for a criminal offence.
(6) Nothing in this section shall apply to \u2014
(a) any cause of action within the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court which is enforceable in rem other than
an action to recover the wages of seamen; or
(b) any action to recover money secured by any mortgage of or charge on land or personal property.
(7) Subject to sections 22 and 32, this section shall apply to all claims for specific performance of a contract or for
an injunction or for other equitable relief whether the same be founded upon any contract or tort or upon any trust
or other ground in equity
Limitation Act - s 24A \u2013 key exception.
(whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of a provision made by or under any written law or
independently of any contract or any such provision).
(2) An action to which this section applies, where the damages claimed consist of or include damages in respect
of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person, shall not be brought after the expiration of \u2014
(a) 3 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
(b) 3 years from the earliest date on which the plaintiff has the knowledge required for bringing an action for
damages in respect of the relevant injury, if that period expires later than the period mentioned in paragraph (a).
(3) An action to which this section applies, other than one referred to in subsection (2), shall not be brought after
the expiration of the period of \u2014
(a) 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued; or
(b) 3 years from the earliest date on which the plaintiff or any person in whom the cause of action was vested
before him first had both the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant
damage and a right to bring such an action, if that period expires later than the period mentioned in paragraph
(5) Knowledge that any act or omission did or did not, as a matter of law, involve negligence, nuisance or breach
of duty is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3).
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person\u2019s knowledge includes knowledge which he might reasonably have
been expected to acquire \u2014
(a) from facts observable or ascertainable by him; or
(b) from facts ascertainable by him with the help of appropriate expert advice which it is reasonable for him to
(7) A person shall not be taken by virtue of sub-section (6) to have knowledge of a fact ascertainable only with
the help of expert advice so long as he has taken all reasonable steps to obtain (and, where appropriate, to act on)
Now bringing you back...
Does that email address look wrong? Try again with a different email.