Sanctions: Where Law and Justice Collide: Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 39
This is a cautionary tale for litigation practitioners and their claimant clients. The decision emanates from the High Court of Singapore, but is equally applicable to any jurisdiction in which security for costs can be sought against the claimant in an action. In Singapore, the Rules of Court set o...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1265 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3218/viewcontent/CJQProof.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | This is a cautionary tale for litigation practitioners and their claimant clients. The decision emanates from the High Court of Singapore, but is equally applicable to any jurisdiction in which security for costs can be sought against the claimant in an action. In Singapore, the Rules of Court set out the procedural rules governing all civil proceedings in the High Court and Subordinate Courts. Unlike the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), the Singapore Rules of Court do not expressly articulate an overriding objective of timely and proportionate justice. However, the courts have consistently prioritised robust case management and “an uncompromising but fair approach towards procedural non-compliance”. |
|---|