JUDGMENTS
Criminal Trial No. 43 of 2017
[Criminal Law – Robbery – Under section 394 Penal Code – Plea of Guilty – Previous Convictions. ]
Decision date: 7 Jun 2017
Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2023
[Criminal law – Defective charge – Revision]
Decision date: 21 Mar 2023
Criminal Trial No. 23 of 2026
[Criminal – sentencing – House-trespass – House-trespass in order to commit theft – Section 451 Penal Code, Chapter 22 – Dwelling house – Theft – Guilty plea – Early guilty plea – One-third discount – Relevant antecedents – Previous conviction for theft – Repeat offender – Deterrence – Aggravating factors – Financial difficulties – Personal mitigation – Recovery of stolen property. ]
Date of Sentence: 6 Sep 2026
Bankruptcy/Creditor’s Petition No. 193 of 2020
[Bankruptcy – Rules 45 and 46 – Act of bankruptcy – Application to set aside Bankruptcy Notice dismissed – Date of act of bankruptcy
Bankruptcy – Section 6(1)(c) – Three-month period – Appeal – Effect of pending appeal
Bankruptcy – Section 100(4) – Extension of time – Scope of discretion – Statutory time limit
Bankruptcy – Exercise of discretion – Particular procedural history – Appeal withdrawn – Liberty to file Creditor’s Petition
Bankruptcy – Extension of time – Petition filed out of ordinary time – Time extended retrospectively – Petition allowed to proceed]
Decision date: 22 Sep 2026
Criminal Trial No. 42 of 2023
[Criminal Law – Sentencing – s.457 of the Penal Code, Cap 22 – House-breaking at night with intention to commit theft – s.379 of the Penal Code, Cap 22 – Theft – Pleaded guilty – First Offender]
Date of Sentence: 21 Sep 2023
Civil Suit No. 33 of 2020
[Damages — Assessment of damages — Unauthorised resale of products outside an authorised distribution channel — Sufficiency of evidential basis for heads of loss advanced by way of supplementary expert exhibit (J1) — Confinement of loss to period of defendant’s market presence — Apportionment between defendant’s conduct and COVID-19 as concurrent causes — Pre-judgment interest — Indemnity costs]
Decision date: 12 Sep 2026
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2024
[- Application by way of Originating Summons for wide-ranging discovery in Law Society Disciplinary proceedings – application refused – appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed on grounds: (1) that a proper policy choice had been made against a general discovery obligation in such proceedings; and (2) that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Originating Summons; alternatively, that the application was barred by Art. 84C of the Brunei Constitution (“Art 84C”) and/or s.6A of the Specific Relief Act (Cap. 109) as amended (“s.6A”)
– The Law Society’s approach to Rule 9 revisited by the Court; without in any way undermining Art. 84C and/or s.6A, or giving a declaration or other relief which the Court of Appeal is not entitled to do, the Court expressed real concern as to the Law Society’s interpretation of Rule 9 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Committee Proceedings) Rules (“Rule 9” and “the Rules”), namely, that it was not required to disclose (in addition to documents on which it intended to rely) documents in its possession, custody or control (if any) which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining its case or of assisting the case of the other party in those proceedings – the Court favoured the contrary view, to the effect that Rule 9 extended to and encompassed an obligation on the Law Society to disclose documents in its possession, custody or control which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining its case or of assisting the case of the practitioner in disciplinary proceedings – McCarthy v Visitors to the Inns of Court & Anor. [2013] EWHC 3253; [2015] EWCA Civ 12 furnished cogent persuasive authority supportive of of the Court’s view
– Though the remedy of judicial review is barred, a party dissatisfied with disclosure by the Law Society in disciplinary proceedings is not without recourse to the Court by way of a variety of statutory routes, for instance, paragraphs 61 and 62 of the Legal Profession (Law Society of Brunei Darussalam) Order (S42/2003, as amended) (“the Order”), paragraph 55(2)(b) of the Order and (where applicable) paragraph 71 of the Order – these statutory routes envisage recourse to the Court without undermining the bar on judicial review – to the extent that it suggested otherwise, Lt. Col. (Rtd.) Hj. Harif Bin Hj. Ibrahim v The Council of the Law Society Brunei Darussalam (High Court of Brunei Darussalam) (Originating Summons No. 14 of 2023) disapproved; Ong Jin Huat v The Law Society of Brunei Darussalam (Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam) (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2022) preferred.
– Furthermore Rule 12 (of the Rules) was not to be overlooked, providing for the Law Society Disciplinary Committee or its Chairman to give directions, inter alia, with regard to disclosure
– While the Court of Appeal (given the bar on judicial review) is not entitled to grant relief by way of a declaration or injunction, the Court was not powerless, in the short term, to craft a roadmap capable of adoption by the Appellant and the Law Society (if so minded) in their own best interests – the possibility discussed of the Appellant making a confined application for discovery (limited to documents in the Law Society’s possession, custody or control which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining its case or of assisting the case of the Appellant) pursuant to Rule 12 and for the Disciplinary Committee or its Chairman to consider it – the Court was confident that the Law Society, when exercising its public function in disciplinary proceedings would wish to act with, at the least, elementary fairness – the Law Society would further have well in mind the roles of the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court and would be alert to the Court’s reluctance to lend its support to any enforcement process in the event of doubts as to the fairness of the procedure
– For the long-term, the Court urged that action should be taken to remedy the unsatisfactory state of affairs concerning Rule 9 – such action could include guidance to be given by the Law Society as to the interpretation of Rule 9 in line with the Court’s view, alternatively consideration should be given to amending Rule 9 to give effect to and embed the Court’s view as to its true meaning and ambit.]
Decision date: 10 Sep 2026
Originating Summons No. 49 of 2021
[Civil Procedure — Setting aside Interim Injunction — Dismiss ]
Decision date: 13 Apr 2022
Criminal Trial No. 40 of 2025
[Sentencing – Section 12(1)(g) of the Passports Act, Chapter 146 and punishable under section 12(1) of the section of the same – without lawful authority, has in his possession any passport or internal travel document issued for the use of some person other than himself – Section 109 Penal Code – Punishment of abetment if act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment – Section 466 Penal Code – Forgery of record of Court or of public register etc – Plead guilty – Appropriate Sentence – Commencement of Sentence.]
Date of Sentence: 18 Sep 2025
Criminal Trial No. 43 of 2025
[Sentencing -Two charges – Section 451 PC read with section 34 PC – Common intention to commit House trespass with the intention to commit theft an offence punishable with imprisonment – Section 379 PC read with section 34 of the same- Theft of a car – Plead guilty – clean record – Public Interest – Deterrence sentence – Appropriate Sentence. ]
Decision date: 11 Feb 2026
Criminal Trial No. 26 of 2025
[Criminal law – Theft in a dwelling – Section 380 Penal Code – Housebreaking to commit theft – Sections 445 and 454 Penal Code – Entry through broken kitchen window – Passage not intended for human entrance – Circumstantial evidence – No eyewitness – Admissions – Police statements – Pointing-out evidence – Recovery of stolen property – Identification and continuity of exhibits – Documentary irregularities – Alibi – Credibility of witnesses – Prosecution’s burden – Proof beyond reasonable doubt – Convicted after trial]
Date of Judgement: 3 Sep 2026
Date of Sentence: 7 Sep 2026
Criminal Trial No. 5 of 2025
[Criminal Law – Counterfeit currency — Use of forged note as genuine —s.489B of the Penal Code, read with s.34 — Mental element: actual knowledge, wilful blindness, or reason to believe — Held: Prosecution failed to exclude reasonable doubt; forgery undetectable to laypersons; Investigating Officer’s concessions and Thian Li Heng supported innocent explanation — Defendants acquitted]
Decision date: 29 Aug 2026
Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2025
[Appeal allowed – Landowner’s claim for liquidated and ascertained damages (“LAD”) for delay in Practical Completion in a Development Project, certified by Project Architect to be 16 March 2020, summarily determined in Developer’s favour under O.14A, RSC (“determination of question of law or construction”), and, had it been necessary to do so, would have been struck out under O.18, r.18(1)(a) RSC (“no reasonable cause of action”)
Disposal: Judgments below set aside and Landowner’s claim dismissed; Costs – Landowner to pay Developer’s costs of appeal and below on standard basis, to be agreed within 28 days, failing which to be determined by the Registrar.
‘Conclusive Evidence’ clause- Cl. 2.7 of Development Agreement provided that “Any certification for extension of time in respect of the Development Project given by the Project Architect … shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties hereto.”
If given effect, Project Architect’s certificate (“the Certificate”), dated 15 June 2022, granting an extension of time (“EOT”) to 16 March 2020, meant that there was no delay, so that the Landowner’s claim for LAD must fail.
Developer applied for EOT on 9 March 2022, almost 2 years after Practical Completion, but relatively promptly after Landowner had claimed LAD on 10
February 2022.
No general rule as to the meaning of a conclusive evidence clause, such as Cl. 2.7 – each clause turns on its own true construction – the foundation for reliance on the expertise of an expert to give a final, conclusive and binding determination is purely contractual – accordingly, a Court is dutybound, subject to well-settled exceptions, to give effect to the bargain made by the parties; it is not for the Court to make some different bargain for the parties.
Only or principal ground for Landowner resisting application of Cl. 2.7 was allegation of bad faith – but the only basis for the allegation of bad faith was the mere timing of the Developer’s application for an EOT and of the Project Architect’s certificate granting an EOT; allegation of bad faith akin to allegation of fraud and treated as such; Court held there was not any or any sufficient foundation for an allegation of fraud; accordingly, no (realistically) arguable basis for this allegation of fraud/bad faith.
No allegation of manifest error, nor could there have been; no challenge to the certificate as such.
No reasonably arguable basis for allegation (insofar as pursued) that Project Architect had materially departed from his instructions; no contractual provision
stipulating time period within which an EOT was to be sought or certified.
Accordingly, Cl. 2.7 to be given final, conclusive and binding effect; Developer entitled to summary determination in its favour.]
Decision date: 27 Aug 2026
Criminal Trial No. 11 of 2024
[Criminal Law – s.376(3)(c) Penal Code – Rape by a person of trust or authority – Complainant below age of 14]
Decision date: 4 Jul 2026
Civil Suit/COM No. 34 of 2022
[party and party costs – assessment of costs – costs follow the event – judicial discretion costs – reasonable cost – reasonably incurred – reasonable amount – Proportionality – legal complexity – factual complexity – volume of documents – witness preparation – conduct of parties costs – repeated adjournments]
Ruling date: 8 Aug 2026
Criminal Trial No. 15 of 2026
[Criminal law – sentence – Section 451 of the Penal Code – early guilty plea – house trespass – theft – Human dwelling – multiple value items – original coffee]
Decision date: 8 Aug 2020
Civil Suit No. 49 of 2019
[Negligence – Workplace Accident – Personal Injury – Assessment of Damages – Quantum -Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities – Fractures – Permanent Deformity – Residual Disability – Limp – Scarring – Psychological Injury – Emotional Distress – Absence of Expert Evidence – No Separate Award – Special Damages – Loss of Earnings – Repatriation – Causation – Proof of Loss – Mitigation – Loss of Earning Capacity – General Damages – Labour Market Disadvantage – Permanent Handicap – Medical Expenses – Future Medical Expenses – Litigation Expenses – Costs]
Decision date: 8 Aug 2026
Criminal Trial No. 15 of 2026
[Criminal law – sentence- Section 451 of the Penal Code – early guilty plea – house trespass – theft – Human dwelling – multiple value items – previous convictions]
Decision date: 8 Aug 2026
Criminal Trial No. 12 of 2026
[Criminal – housebreaking – theft – employer – Sentencing — multiple offences – Plea of guilty — Mitigation — Reduction in sentence for guilty plea — Timing of plea — Whether one-third discount appropriate — Aggravating factors — Deterrence — Totality principle — Concurrent and consecutive sentences — Credit for remand]
Decision date: 5 Aug 2026
Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2020
[Civil Procedure — Rules of the Supreme Court — Order 21 rule 2(6) — Automatic discontinuance — Default judgment — Interlocutory judgment — Assessment of damages — Multiple defendants — Continuing proceedings — Step or proceeding in the action — Construction of Rules — Order 37 rule 3 — Whether procedural steps taken against remaining defendant constitute “any step or proceeding in the action” — Interaction between Order 21 rule 2(6) and Order 37 rule 3 — Extension of time under Order 21 rule 2(8). ]
Decision date: 4 Aug 2026
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2025
[Criminal Law – Sentence – s.509 Penal Code (Cap. 22) – Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman – Appeal against sentence – Manifest inadequency – Sentencing principles – Technology-facilitated invasion of privacy – Covert recording in place of expected privacy – General deterrence and denunciation – Aggravating and mitigating factors – Appellate guidance – Appropriate starting point – Appeal allowed]
Decision date: 4 Aug 2026
Criminal Motion No. 4 of 2026
[Criminal Law – bail appeal application – bail denied by senior magistrate – propensity to commit offence – prosecution has strong case – eyewitness – bailed further denied – appeal dismissed]
Decision date: 1 1 Aug 2026
Criminal Motion No. 4 of 2026
[Criminal Law – bail appeal application – bail denied by senior magistrate – propensity to commit offence – prosecutino has strong case – eyewitness – bailed further denied – appeal dismissed]
Decision date: 1 Aug 2026
Civil Suit No. 88 of 2021
[Claims arising out of a construction project – by the developer for liquidated damages for delay and damages for defects – by the contractor for return of retention monies and damages for delay by the developer – consideration of evidence of delay – terms of the contract – whether any defects attributable to the contractor.]
Decision date: 27 Jul 2026
Civil Suit No. 12 of 2022
[Claims arising out of a construction project – by the developer for liquidated damages for delay and damages for defects – by the contractor for return of retention monies and damages for delay by the developer – consideration of evidence of delay – terms of the contract – whether any defects attributable to the contractor]
Decision date: 27 Jul 2026
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.