Kwan Yuen Heng v Teo Yong Soon [2022] SGHC(A) 9
Summary: Successfully resisted the Defendant’s appeal against the judgement sum of $1.62 million that we obtained for our client.
We were successful in proving that our client was not an unlicensed moneylender and that he had in fact made the loans to the Defendant.
Teo Yong Soon v Kwan Yuen Heng [2021] SGHC 112
Successfully obtained judgement of $1.62 million for our client.
We were successful at the High Court in proving that our clients’ claims were more probable than the claims of the Defendant. We managed to do this through rigorous cross-examination that exposed the many inconsistencies in the Defendant’s case.
Saimee bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd and others [2019] SGHC 159
Successfully obtained close to S$ 1 million in damages for our client, who was one of the fore-most jockeys in Singapore.
We were successful in showing that two financial advisors and their financial advisory firm were liable in negligence to our client for the advice that they had rendered him regarding certain financial products.
Tee Yok Kiat and another v Pang Min Seng and another [2012] SGHC 85
Successfully defended a claim of more than $600,000 in damages against our client.
We were successful in showing that the Plaintiff’s claims for unlawful means conspiracy, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and unjust enrichment ought to fail because money had been paid by the Plaintiff as a gift.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd [2008] SGDC 108
Successfully obtaining indemnity costs for our client from the date of offer although this was not usually granted.
We were successful in showing that the Plaintiff had acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings, resulting in wastage of resources, time and costs.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 216
Successfully resisted the Plaintiff’s appeal against indemnity cost order made by the Judge at the District Court.
We were successful in persuading Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong that O 22A r 9(5) of the Rules of Court granted the court an overriding discretion to deal with offers to settle and that the District Judge had been acting within his discretion in granting the indemnity cost order in favour of the client.
Kader Mydeen s/o Muthu Ibrahim Samsudin v Gulab Bhojraj and Another [2008] SGHC 175
Successfully obtained damages for our client for the breach by the Defendants of an agreement to offer our client priority to purchase a property for S$1.928 million.
We were successful in showing that the Defendants were lying and that their credibility was shaken through rigorous cross-examination and through a meticulous analysis of the evidence in the case.
Amar Hoseen Mohammed Revai v Singapore Airlines Ltd [1994] SGHC 213
Successfully obtained an exceptional order for our client that no costs be payable as security even though he was a foreigner.
We were successful in showing that because the Plaintiff had a good chance of succeeding and that because the Plaintiff was indigent, it was in the interests of justice to ensure that he be able to bring his suit without the issue of security for costs hampering the same.
Tan Chuan Ten and another v Public Prosecutor [1997] SGCA 16
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client at the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the High Court to sentence him to death for trafficking heroin.
We were successful in our appeal in showing that not even a prima facie case had been made out by the Prosecution and that the defence ought not to have been called.
Poh Kay Keong v Public Prosecutor [1995] SGCA 84
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client at the Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of the High Court to sentence him to death for trafficking diamorphine.
We were successful in our appeal in showing that the alleged confession made by our client had been made because of a threat by the Police Officer. We were also successful in our appeal in showing that there was serious doubt that our client had been in possession of the drugs.
This case is notable because we successfully argued that the phrase “having reference to the charge against the accused” in 24 of the-then Evidence Act (which can now be found under s258 of the Criminal Procedure Code) should be expansively read to mean that the inducement, threat or promise is operative so long as it is made to obtain a confession relating to the charge in question.
Public Prosecutor v Manogaran s/o R Ramu [1996] SGCA 64
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client, persuading the Court of Appeal to uphold the High Court’s acquittal.
We were successful in persuading the Court of Appeal that based on Art 11(1) of the Constitution any change in the position of the law that that Court decided on ought not to be applied to the present case and ought only to be applied prospectively.
At [36], our arguments were noted by the court as being “extensive and cogent”.
Public Prosecutor v Sudarsanan Margasagayam [2006] SGHC 170
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client of all 5 charges of rape that he faced.
We were successful in persuading the High Court through rigorous cross-examination that the complainant’s evidence was largely inconsistent and ought not to be given due weight.
Forward Food Management Pte Ltd and another v Public Prosecutor [2002] SGHC 46
Successfully obtained an acquittal at the High Court for our clients who were facing one charge each of illegally employing a foreign worker outside of the scope of their duties after they had been convicted for the same at the State Courts.
We were successful in persuading Chief Justice Yong Pung How to set aside the convictions through showing that there was ambiguity in the scope of duties demarcated by the Ministry of Manpower and that it was reasonable in the circumstances for our clients to have employed the foreign worker for the tasks in question.
Chan Yok Tuang v Public Prosecutor [2008] SGHC 137
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client facing one charge of criminal intimidation after he had been convicted of the same at the District Court and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
We were successful in persuading Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong to set aside the conviction by showing that our client did not intend, and the Police officer could not have understood our client to intend, the words uttered by our client to take on their literal meaning. |
Public Prosecutor v Manogaran S/O R Ramu [1996] SGHC 204
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client at the High Court for the offence of trafficking 3488.91 grams of cannabis mixture.
We were successful in arguing that the substance in our client’s possession did not fit within the definition of cannabis mixture in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Public Prosecutor v Chua Fatt Chye [2006] SGDC 161
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client at the District Court for the offence of rioting.
We were successful in arguing that our client was attacked first and that he then defended himself in a one-to-one fight. We managed to do this by showing that the evidence of many of the prosecution’s witnesses was not credible through rigorous cross-examination.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Guan Heng [2015] SGDC 185
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client at the District Court for the offence of cheating the complainant of two diamond studded gold Rolex watches.
We were successful in showing that the monies that the complainant had paid for the watches had in fact been a loan to our client. This was done through meticulous examination of the facts in the case and a rigorous cross-examination of the complainant.
DJ at [52] expressed his gratitude to the “learned Defence Counsel” for his “hard work and assistance”.
Public Prosecutor v Wong Ang Yew Justin [2004] SGDC 241
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client at the District Court for one charge of driving whilst under disqualification and another charge of driving without the requisite insurance coverage.
We were successful in showing that despite the Police having arrested a driver who produced our client’s driving license (American) as his own, that the driver had likely misappropriated our client’s driver’s license (British) and presented it as his own. The Court agreed with us that the Prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that our client had indeed been the one driving the car.
Public Prosecutor v Ganesh s/o M Sinnathamby [2007] SGDC 95
Successfully obtained a term of imprisonment for our client that was one-third of that which our client would have received for the 3 charges that he faced for leaving Singapore while an undischarged bankrupt. See [21] of the Judgement.
We were successful in showing that the fact that our client had been able to discharge himself from bankruptcy was a relevant mitigating factor that the court should consider.
Ganesh s/o M Sinnathamby v Public Prosecutor [2007] SGHC 189
Successfully appealed the reduced sentence that we had managed to obtain our client at the District Court to further reduce his sentence to that of a fine at the High Court.
We were successful in showing that our client’s efforts at successfully discharging himself from bankruptcy should have been accorded more weight than it was in the judgement at District Court level.
Public Prosecutor v Yong Siew Khian [2003] SGMC 22
Successfully obtained an acquittal for our client at the district court for 3 charges of maid abuse.
We were successful in showing that the complainant maid was not naïve as the Prosecution had tried to prove, but rather an intelligent and shrewd person. We were successful in showing that she had concocted the plan to fabricate evidence against our client to avoid the substantial financial penalty that she would have faced if she had attempted to leave our client’s employment without such an allegation of abuse.
Complex Problems. Practical Solutions.
Veteran Experience. Youthful Exuberance.
Copyright © All rights reserved by Phoenix Law
