JUDGMENTS
Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2011
[Order 14 proceedings taken by bank against company debtor and the guarantor. Summary judgment in the bank’s favour granted by the judge. On appeal by the debtor and the guarantor Certificate of indebtedness held to be conclusive of the amount owed. Submission that leave to defend should be given because the guarantor alleges he signed a settlement agreement because of undue influence rejected as the suggestion of undue influence was held to be unmeritorious and a sham. Appeal dismissed with indemnity costs]
Decision date: 8 Dec 2011
Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2011
[-]
Decision date: 7 Dec 2011
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2011
[-]
Pg Datin Hjh Masnonah Bte Pg Hj Damit v Dk Seri Norkertika Bte Pg Dato SLJ Hj Hasnan, Ak Kamarul Hansan Bin Pg Dato SLJ Hj Hasnan, Dk Shalinawati Bte Pg Dato SLJ Hj Hasnan
COACV/11/2011
Decision date: 5 Dec 2011
Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2011
Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2011
[-]
Decision date: 5 Dec 2011
Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2011
[Action in tort arising from actions of defendants in participating in decision to recommend dismissal of plaintiff from Royal Brunei Armed Forces – constitutional questions – decision of His Majesty the Sultan to dismiss the plaintiff – neither the decision nor its correctness capable of being questioned – decision made in exercise of arbitrary discretion – action bound to fail Costs – Attorney-General’s right to costs]
Decision date: 29 Nov 2011
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2011
[-]
Decision date: 19 Nov 2011
Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2011
[Appeal against order refusing to stay judgment of this Court – effect of payment by purchaser of whole of purchase price – effect of clause requiring successive applications for approval of transfer]
Decision date: 17 Nov 2011
Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2011
[Companies winding up order under section 163 (a) and 162 (e) of the companies act. A winding up order will be made under a settled practice of the court if the facts under section 163 (a) are established unless good reason is shown not to make such an order]
Decision date: 10 Nov 2011
Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2011
[Lawyers instructed by bank to search the Bankruptcy Register for person with title Pengiran or Pg to whom they wished to advance money. Common knowledge that before marriage in Brunei such a person may use the title Awangku or Ak. Lawyers failed to search for Awangku or Aw. The person was bankrupt listed under title Ak. Lawyers informed bank that the person was not on Bankruptcy Register. Bank advanced money to bankrupt and nothing repaid. Judge held lawyers in breach of contract and negligent for failing to search with the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent and careful lawyer and awarded damages. Judge’s finding upheld on appeal.]
Decision date: 25 May 2011
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2011
[Lawyers instructed by bank to search the Bankruptcy Register for person with title Pengiran or Pg to whom they wished to advance money. Common knowledge that before marriage in Brunei such a person may use the title Awangku or Ak. Lawyers failed to search for Awangku or Aw. The person was bankrupt listed under title Ak. Lawyers informed bank that the person was not on Bankruptcy Register. Bank advanced money to bankrupt and nothing repaid. Judge held lawyers in breach of contract and negligent for failing to search with the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent and careful lawyer and awarded damages. Judge’s finding upheld on appeal. ]
Decision date: 25 May 2011
Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2010
[Action for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of a shophouse dismissed on grounds he has sold it to the defendant. Appeal on questions of fact dismissed. ]
Decision date: 25 May 2011
Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2011
[Damages for breach of contract by repudiation –principles of assessment – application of principles –may depend, in a development agreement, on the time at which the cause of action arises – mitigation of damage –onus of proof]
Decision date: 25 May 2011
Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2010
[Whether the Lunacy Act, Chapter 48, is, with respect to the provisions of the Lunacy Acts 1890 to 1908, U.K., dealing with the administration of estates of persons of unsound mind, other provision made by a written law in force in Brunei within section 2 of the Application of Laws Act, Chapter 2 –whether the Lunacy Acts, England., are statutes of general application within section 2 – orders appropriate to be made under the Lunacy Acts, England]
Decision date: 24 May 2011
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2010
[Appellant convicted of 3 offences under section 6 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Cap.131 and 7 offences under section 165 of the Penal Code, Cap22. Appeal against conviction on the judge’s findings on questions of fact dismissed. Appeal against sentences totalling 7 years with financial penalties also dismissed]
Decision date: 9 Dec 2010
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. ]
Decision date: 6 Dec 2010
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2010
[Deeds of assignment of development agreement and of leasehold rights by way of security – legal effect – assignor retains only equity of redemption – insufficient proprietary right to enable assignor to convey mortgaged property to another.
Contract – covenant not assign without consent – in context construed as permission to assign with prior consent – absence of consent
Ostensible authority of agent – absence of sufficient evidence ]
Decision date: 6 Dec 2010
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2010
[Offence under section 6(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act – appeal against conviction – elements of offence – findings of credit – advantage of trial judge – evidence of good character –meaning of section 53 of Evidence Act Appeal against sentence – importance of deterrence]
Decision date: 2 Dec 2010
Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2010
[Approach of Court of Appeal to findings of fact based on acceptance by trial judge of oral evidence – advantage of trial judge who has seen and heard witness. ]
Decision date: 27 Nov 2010
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2010
[Evidence – whether bank’s certificate of money due was conclusive evidence. Whether ‘without prejudice’ correspondence admissible where there has been a concluded settlement.
A bank claimed money due and applied for summary judgment. The hearing of the application was adjourned with liberty to restore after a settlement had been entered into by the parties. The settlement agreement contained an admission of the debt and provided that if the debtors defaulted in performance of the terms of
the settlement they agreed to the bank’s entering summary judgment. The debtors defaulted and when the bank restored the application in relation to the original claim it sought to adduce evidence as to the settlement. When the defendants claimed that the settlement had been brought about by undue pressure, the bank sought to produce a ‘without prejudice’ letter to show that negotiations had been conducted at arms length through solicitors. The defendants applied to strike out the letter and other evidence relating to the settlement, claiming privilege. They also applied to strike out a certificate from the bank which, the bank claimed, was under its contract with the debtors conclusive evidence of the sum stated in the certificate to be due.]
Decision date: 27 Nov 2010
Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2010
[Assignment by Deed by a 3rd party to a creditor in respect of a debt. Issue — whether the original debt was released by the creditor. Whether the assignment is absolute or by way of charge only is nothing to the point. The debtor promisee may choose with whom he contracts and the burden of a contract may not be assigned to another without his agreement. The creditor did not release the original debt in the deed and the debtor was not a party to it. There was no evidence that the creditor agreed otherwise to release the original debt which
had not been satisfied. The creditor could therefore seek the money from either the debtor or the assignor but could only recover it once. Such recovery is performance of the contract]
Decision date: 25 Nov 2010
Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2009
[Evidence – Evidence Act, Cap 108, Section 114(g). The plaintiff invited the judge in his discretion to draw an adverse inference from the absence of a potential witness for the defence. The judge did not do so. Held on appeal: in the circumstances of the case the judge did not err. ]
Decision date: 18 Nov 2010
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2009
[Construction of Participation Agreement. Creation of trust but no equitable assignment because specific performance excluded. Trustee correct party to sue. ]
Decision date: 1 June 2010
Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2010
[Contract. Repudiation. General damages for breach by repudiation. Damages to be assessed as at date of acceptance of repudiation. Measure of damages. Assessment of present value of sums to be received in the future.]
Decision date: 1 June 2010
Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009
[Order 22A rule 9. The defendants made offers to a number of plaintiff’s under order 22A. Some plaintiff’s accepted the offers about 8 months later when the hearing to assess damages was nearly complete. The defendants claimed that under the rule they were entitled to their costs against those plaintiff’s on an indemnity basis. Held: the necessary conditions were not present and the rule did not apply as 1) these plaintiff’s had accepted offers and 2) there was no judgment equal to or less favourable than the offer. Appeal dismissed. ]
Decision date: 29 May 2010
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.