JUDGMENTS
Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2010
[Limitation – Limitation Act Cap14, Section 27 (1) (a) – meaning of “in the possession of the trustee” – does not include property formerly in possession. ]
Jerambak Holdings Pty Ltd (formerly known as Glencoe Pty Ltd) (Company No. A.C.N 009 615 105), Halaqah Sdn Bhd v Pehin Datu Kesuma Diraja Col (R), Haji Abdul Rahman Bin Mustapha, Dato Paduka Dr. Haji Morni Bin Othman
COACV/14/2010
Decision date: 6 Dec 2010
Originating Summons No. 44 of 2014
[Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment — Appeal by way of rehearing — Late amendment — No affidavit explaining delay — Introduction of new and potentially dispositive defence — Prejudice — Discretion — When amendment should be refused]
[Contract — Repudiation — Distinction between breach and repudiation — Election — Contract Act (Cap. 106) — Limitation defence — Futility]
[Practice and Procedure — Registrar’s decision — Appeal — Rehearing — Discretion to allow amendment — Ketteman & Ors v Hansel Properties Ltd & Ors applied]
Haraz Industrial Sdn Bhd, Yau Wee Woon, Wu Chay Chin v Lee Fat Khong
OS/44/2014
Decision date: 26 Jan 2026
Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2024
[Civil: Appeal from Judge’s ruling refusing an appeal from Registrar’s ruling that action deemed automatically discontinued, pursuant to O.21, r.2(6) RSC, and refusing reinstatement under O.21, r.2(10) RSC, dismissed]
Decision date: 20 Jan 2026
Civil Suit/COM No. 109 of 2017
[Civil Procedure – Application for leave to appeal to the court of appeal and extension of time to file appeal – factors to consider when allowing leave to appeal – in this case no prospect of success – application dismissed]
Decision date: 18 Dec 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2025
[Criminal law — Bail — Revocation — Accused charged in separate case while on bail — Breach of bail conditions — Failure to remain contactable — Proper exercise of discretion — Appeal dismissed]
Decision date: 17 Dec 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2025
[Criminal Appeal – Extension of time to pay fine – Sentencing discretion – Ability to pay – Unrealistic repayment proposal – No merit in appeal – Appeal dismissed]
Decision date: 13 Dec 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2025
[Criminal Procedure — Application for Leave to Travel Abroad Pending Appeal — Road Traffic Conviction — Change of Circumstances — Risk of Absconding — Appropriate Safeguards — Appeal Hearing Date Fixed — Leave Granted with
Enhanced Bail Conditions]
Decision date: 26 Jan 2026
Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2024
[Civil Law. Appeal against Judge’s Order granting Respondent relief, including an Order for sale, in respect of a Memorandum of Charge on each of two separate parcels of land and Units built on land entered into to secure Trade Line Facilities for company, Panahome, dismissed with costs. Action arose from failure of Panahome to repay monies owed from use of those facilities. Appellant’s deposit with Court of BND 1000 as security for appeal released to Respondent in part-payment of costs]
Decision date: 19 Nov 2025
Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2024
[Civil: costs of trial; A. awarded damages against Rs for personal injuries but A. 30% contributorily negligent.; Judge ordered costs to A.; O. 59, r. 3(2), RSC-Court’s power to order that part of the costs should not follow the event. Court ordered discount of 10% from Order of costs to Rs for increased costs of trial of contested contributory negligence.
Order: Rs to pay A. 90% of A’s costs]
Decision date: 19 Nov 2025
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2025
- [Civil. Law Society’s appeal from decision of Acting Chief Justice admitting R. as an Advocate and Solicitor in Brunei Darussalam dismissed. R a person who is neither a citizen of nor a permanent resident in Brunei Darussalam. No order for costs.
- Meaning of “qualified person” within ss.3 and following of the Legal Profession Act, CAP 132 (“the LPA”), together with the requirement of being in “active practice” in the UK “for at least 7 years immediately preceding” the application.
- Consideration of requirement of “good character” in ss. 4(b) and 5 of the LPA and duty of candour on applicant.
- Role of Law Society: gravity of an allegation calling into question a professional’s good character or alleging a want of candour.
- In the generality of cases, the correct approach in Brunei Darussalam is to welcome those who have the expertise and experience to contribute to the practice of law in Brunei Darussalam and the development of this jurisdiction, subject, always, to insistence on the requisite standards, namely: that applicant is a qualified person and of good
character. Touchstone throughout is the public interest. Task is to balance benefits to the public interest of Brunei Darussalam in admitting such foreign practitioners while maintaining requisite standards. - Inherent jurisdiction: Order framed to deal with applicant’s withdrawal of Petition and stated intention of not returning to Brunei Darussalam]
COACV/1/2025
Decision date: 1 Nov 2025
Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2024
[Civil Procedure: Appeal dismissed. Following automatic discontinuance of action, pursuant to O. 21, r. 2 (6), Appellant’s application for leave for reinstatement, pursuant to O. 21, r. 2 (10) refused by Registrar; appeal dismissed by Judge. Three-limb test for reinstatement applied: test stipulated in Singapore in Moguntia-Est, adopted in Brunei
Darussalam and explained in Maxwell, approved by Court of Appeal in Hafiz]
Decision date: 28 Oct 2025
Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2024
Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2024
[Civil Procedure-Costs: (i) Trial-Order 22A, r. 9 (3) of Rules of Supreme Court, Cap. 5 not applicable-only offer to settle proceedings was from 2nd R. for BND 85,000; judgment for A. for BND 124,529.92, with interest and costs, more favourable than terms of offer; 1st/2nd Rs to pay A.’s costs on standard basis, to be taxed, if not agreed, subject to determination of 2nd R. ‘s claim for discount of costs- relevance of J. ‘s contested finding of A’s contributory negligence/rejection of some heads of claim; DIrections: parties to file submissions in 7 days.
(ii) Court of Appeal- A ‘s appeal dismissed; A. to pay 1st/2nd Rs’ costs on standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed]
Decision date: 8 Oct 2025
Originating Motion No. 3 of 2025
Civil. Renewed application for leave to appeal allowed: Judge’s dismissal of Registrar’s refusal to strike out Respondent’s claim, O.18, r. (1), RSC on grounds what it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court; and O.14 A, RSC as a matter of a question of law and/or construction of documents. Respondent’s claim for liquidated damages for delay in delivery of Units by Applicant on practical completion in Development Agreement. Issue arising of effect of Project Architect’s unparticularised certification of an extension of time for practical completion of 125 days, on application of Applicant on several different grounds including a Stop-Work Order issued by Authorities because site was not safe, having regard to Clause 2.7 that such certification, “…shall be construed and relied upon as valid and any such certification shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties hereto.” No issue as to fraud or dishonesty in the issue of certificate. Narrowness of defence of “manifest error”. Sara Hossein Assets Holdings Ltd. v Blacks Outdoor Retail Ltd. [2023] UKSC 2, at paragraphs 30-34]
Decision date: 29 Oct 2025
Criminal Trial No. 3 of 2025
[Section 380A PC- Theft from a building used as a place of worship- Section 378 PC-
Definition of theft- Section 22 PC- Definition of movable property- Section 23 –
“Wrongful gain and “wrongful loss”- Section 24 PC- Dishonestly- Pleaded not guilty-
Convicted after trial]
Decision date: 9 Aug 2025
Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2024
[Civil Law- Appeal allowed: Judge’s dismissal of A.’s claim for loss and damages for wrongful termination of contract of employment set aside. A.’s claim for B$180,000 allowed.
Costs: R. to pay A.’s costs below and on appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
A. employed on five-year fixed term contract: no express termination clause; incomplete/missing text. R’s letter to A. of termination of employment asserted A. redundant. Now, R asked Court to imply term in contract of right to termination of employment without cause on notice/payment in lieu.
Implying term in contract as a matter of fact: test is ‘necessity’; reasonableness is a necessary requirement, but not of itself sufficient to imply a term.
Judge erred in relying on s. 92(f) of Evidence Act, Cap.108; written contract not required for contract of employment. Judge erred: in considering terms in contracts of employment of two other employees; finding them to have ‘standard and uniform’ terms; and implying the termination clause there provided into A.’s contracts of employment.
Those contracts were different from each other and were not standard and uniform terms. No evidence A. had any knowledge of any of those terms. Term implied by judge, that Respondent had right to terminate Appellant’s employment without cause, not justified in law and failed to meet ‘necessity’ test of implication of terms in fact]
Decision date: 14 Jul 2025
Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2025
- Default judgment regularly obtained – Allowing appeal from Registrar, Judge set default judgment aside; O. 13, r.8
- Test in law in Brunei for setting aside default judgment regularly obtained – without fettering Judge’s wide discretion and save very exceptionally, a default judgment regularly obtained will not be set aside unless the
defendant demonstrates a defence with a ‘real prospect of success’ – there is no point otherwise in setting aside the default judgment - Test derived from application of English and Brunei authorities – Application of Laws Act (Cap. 2) considered
- Judge mis-stated test but any error of law on the part of the Judge was neither material nor, still less, crucial
- Judge erred in fact in determining that: there was a triable issue; Appellant bore burden of proving existence of Sub-Contract between parties; Appellant was required to do so at trial. The Appellant having adduced the Sub-Contract in evidence, and the Judge having rejected the allegation of forgery, there was nothing to impugn its existence.
- Court of Appeal entitled to intervene
- Appeal allowed – default judgment restored]
Decision date: 14 Jul 2025
Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2024
[Civil Law A.’s appeal dismissed. Appeal against J.’s finding of contributory negligence and assessment of 30% liability; failure to award damages for Future Loss of Earnings, Loss of ability to carry out DIY, Loss of salary-2018 to 2023; quantum of damages for Loss of Earning Capacity too low
Held: Appellate Court does not interfere with judge’s findings of facts, unless judge is wrong in principle, having heard all the witnesses, has misapprehended the facts or is otherwise plainly wrong.
Contributory negligence: 2nd R. conducted safety briefings- warning to stay 3-5 from operating excavator; in standing 1 m. from operating excavator A. in dangerous position- careless. J.’s assessment of 30% liability not plainly wrong.
Loss of Future Earnings; in choosing to resign from R.’s employment, leaving Brunei to return to Indonesia, two years after returning to work on full salary performing ‘light duties’, A. chose ‘risk of unemployment’, which occurred: A. did not mitigate his loss. J entitled to dismiss his claim. Loss of ability to carry out DIY- J. entitled to find no evidence to support claim.
Loss of salary, overtime and benefits- September 2018-2023: J entitled to reject claim on basis of A’s choice to resign from R’s employment, leave Brunei and return to Indonesia with associated ‘risk of unemployment’.
Loss of Earning Capacity-quantum: J.’s award of B$40,000 was amount sought by A. at trial. J. not plainly wrong.
Costs: parties directed to file written submissions.]
Criminal Trial No. 8 of 2025
[Sentencing: Joint charges – S 451 PC read with section 34 of the same – House trespass in order to commit theft – Common intention – Pleaded guilty- repeated offender – Public Interest -Deterrence sentence – Appropriate Sentence]
Decision date: 13 Feb 2025
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2023
[Civil-personal injuries. Appellant-international consultant marine engineer. Appeal from Judge’s dismissal with costs of Appellant’s claim for damages for injuries suffered from fall to ground from Respondent’s vessel in dry dock in third-party’s shipyard, dismissed with costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
Vessel in care, custody and control of third-party shipyard. Respondent required third-party’s consent to enter shipyard and access vessel; facilitated Appellant’s entry.
Relationship between Appellant and Respondent. Judge’s findings upheld: Appellant was not employee and/or independent contractor of Respondent; Appellant inspecting vessel in hope his resulting report/quotation would secure acceptance of his future services by Respondent.
Respondent’s duty of care to Appellant. Even if Respondent owed a duty of care to Appellant and third-party shipyard was in breach of its own duty of care to Appellant, Respondent not in breach of its duty of care to Appellant: (i) third-party shipyard was competent and experienced, of which Respondent had personal knowledge; (ii)Appellant was experienced international consultant marine engineer; Respondent entitled to expect Appellant would recognise circumstances of compromised safety and act accordingly. ]
Decision date: 7 Jan 2025
Civil Appeal No.8 of 2022
[ Civil law: appeal, against judge’s dismissal of Deputy Chief Registrar’s dismissal of counterclaim, dismissed]
Decision date: 29 July 2024
Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2021
[Road Traffic accident and personal injuries]
Decision date: 1 Dec 2022
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2021
[Duty of parties to plead cases fully, identify claims, not evidence, using other procedures such as Notices to Admit, to Produce and where appropriate Interrogatories. Purpose and role of Scott Schedule; Judicial role is not to supplement practitioners’ inadequate preparation]
Decision date: 29 Nov 2022
Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2020
[Construction contract – arbitration clause – appeal allowed on the basis that there is
no “dispute” as defined by the arbitration clause – stay for arbitration refused]
Decision date: 7 July 2021
Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020
YAN YEE HAN v KAI WANG SDN BHD, LAU TECH CHIONG
COACM/7/2020
Decision date: 22 June 2021
About GOV.BN | Research Us | Rate this Website
Digital Services
Overview of Digital Government
Digital Government Strategy & Initiatives
Digital Government Strategic Plans & Legislation
Other Information
Circular & Policy
Tenders & Quotations
TPOR for Government Agencies
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Disclaimer
Copyright Goverment of Brunei Darussalam. All Right Reserved.