Restitution
In contrast to 2002, which was an exceptionally bountiful year for the law of restitution in Singapore, 2003 has seen far fewer cases in this subject area. One important case, Parkway Properties Pte Ltd v United Artists Singapore Theatres Pte Ltd [2003] 2 SLR 103, was decided in early 2003 and has b...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2004
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/273 https://search.library.smu.edu.sg/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_rmit_collectionsjats_search_informit_org_doi_10_3316_informit_155113206747546&context=PC&vid=65SMU_INST:SMU_NUI&lang=en&search_scope=Everything&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,yeo%20tiong%20min%20restitution%202004&offset=0 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In contrast to 2002, which was an exceptionally bountiful year for the law of restitution in Singapore, 2003 has seen far fewer cases in this subject area. One important case, Parkway Properties Pte Ltd v United Artists Singapore Theatres Pte Ltd [2003] 2 SLR 103, was decided in early 2003 and has been noted in (2002) 3 SAL Ann Rev at paras 19.67 to 19.79 in view of its significance in relation to other cases noted for the year 2002, including the judgment from which the appeal was heard ([2003] 1 SLR 791). Apart from this case, the law reports and LawNet database reveal only three Supreme Court decisions decided in 2003 which contained any notable discussion on the law of restitution. One dealt with statutory contribution, and in two others, restitutionary claims, which were pleaded in the alternative to contractual claims, failed. The latter two cases provide interesting studies on the relationship between the law of contract and the law of restitution. |
|---|