JUDGMENTS
Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2025
[Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap 131 and Penal Code, Cap. 22 – Appeal by Prosecution against acquittal on all charges – Failure of a Magistrate to determine if defendants have rebutted presumption under Section 25 of Prevention of Corruption Act – Magistrate to assess evidence in totality based on objective standard – Appeal allowed – Retrial ordered]
Decision date: 22 Oct 2025
Civil Suit No. 5 of 2025
[Application for leave to appeal – debtor the subject of a receiving order wishing to review taxation of costs – whether leave of Official Receiver required – whether certificate of costs final upon being admitted as a debt – jurisdiction of court]
Decision date: 21 Oct 2025
Civil Suit No. 30 Of 2023
[Civil Procedure — Interlocutory applications — Payment into court — Whether defect in summons fatal or curable under O.2 r.1 and O.86 r.4 — Scope of O.29 r.2(3) — Application at post-judgment stage — Outstanding costs and pending appeal — Whether sufficient to constitute “dispute over a specific fund” — Jurisdiction. ]
Decision date: 9 Oct 2025
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
Criminal Trial No. 3 of 2022
[Criminal Law – Sentencing – Human Trafficking – Section 4 of the Trafficking and Smuggling of Persons Order 2004 – six Bangladeshi victims recruited by deception – plead guilty during trial after 4 out of 6 victims have given evidence – 1/3 discount in sentencing not afforded – multiple aggravating factors outweigh late guilty plea – sentence of 7 years 6 months’ imprisonment, fine $120,000 and 4 strokes imposed]
Decision date: 2 Oct 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2025
[Criminal law – Bail –Appeal against Magistrate Decision – Evidence in its entirety – Appeal Allowed – Magistrate Decision set aside]
Decision date: 2 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
Companies Winding Up No. 4 of 2025
[ Arbitration – Stay of proceedings – International Arbitration Act, s 6 – Prima facie standard – Tomolugen three-stage test – Valid arbitration agreement – Dispute within scope – Agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed – Non-payment of deposit – Refund request – Resignation of arbitrator – Prolonged inactivity – Just and equitable winding-up – Public policy – Balance of prejudice – Stay refused. ]
SUTERA ENERGY SDN BHD v APPSMITHS SUTERA SDN BHD, APPSMITHS SDN BHD
BCY/4/2025
Decision date: 30 Sep 2025
Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2024
[Civil- Procedure: (i) O.21, r.2(6) automatic discontinuance rule; and (ii) O.21, r.2(10) discretionary power to reinstate action. Appellant/Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed with costs, to be taxed if not agreed; lower Court’s orders on costs upheld.
June 2013-Road Traffic Accident causing personal injuries; March 2016 – action set down for trial; December 2017 – early trial dates sought (not trial ready.)
Automatic discontinuance rule: initially developed in English law, adopted in Singapore and applied in Brunei – Moguntia-Est Epices SA v Sea-Hawk Freight Pte Ltd [2003] 4 SLR(R) 429 and Malayan Banking Berhad v Maxwell Co. Sdn Bhd & Anor [Civil Suit No. 107 of 2005]; applied case management philosophy – promoting despatch, expedition and efficiency and countering inexcusable delay in litigation;
• rule not rendered inapplicable merely because action set down for trial;
• Practice Direction No. 3 of 2015- trial dates only allocated once all pre-trial issues resolved;
• though incumbent on Court to set trial dates, parties not absolved from duty to do what they can to progress the litigation;
• if rule applied, action automatically discontinued.
Discretionary power to reinstate action- O.21, r.2(10)
• Reinstatement- exception not the rule – three limbs to be satisfied, cumulatively; Court of Appeal will not lightly interfere with exercise of case management discretion by Registrar or Judge.
Summary of principles: automatic discontinuance rule and exercise of discretion to reinstate action automatically discontinued.
Application: (i) automatic discontinuance rule, O.21, r.2(6) if applicable, trigger date was 4 August 2018, with guillotine date 3 August 2019; rule remained applicable and action automatically discontinued.
(ii) discretionary power to reinstate action, O.21, r.2(10)
Court of Appeal declined to interfere with discretionary decisions of Registrar and Judge refusing to reinstate action – although agreeing with the Registrar, and reversing the Judge, that first limb of Moguntia was satisfied; Appellant failed to satisfy second limb of Moguntia.]
Decision date: 2 Sep 2025
Criminal Trial No. 4 of 2024
[Rape – Child under 14 – Partial penetration sufficient – Child witness – Unsworn evidence – Section 133A Evidence Act – Corroboration – Complaint to mother – Section 157 Evidence Act – Medical evidence – Redness at vaginal entrance – No hymenal tear – No semen – Credibility of complainant – Conduct of accused – Apology when confronted – Defence of denial and alibi – Alibi not made out – Burden of proof – Prosecution case proven beyond reasonable doubt]
Decision date: 2 Sep 2025
Civil Suit No 39 of 2021
[Civil Procedure – appeal against two registrar’s decision – (i) granting leave to amendment defence and counterclaim, including joinder of third party – (ii) direction that expert evidence proceed via single joint expert – plaintiffs opposed amendments as late, inconsistent with earlier pleadings, introducing new causes of action, prejudicial, and potentially time-barred – defendants argued amendments were necessary to ventilate real issues, supported by equitable and limitation exceptions, and permissible under O.20 r.5 SCR – registrar found no irremediable prejudice and allowed amendments – plaintiffs also challenged joint expert order, contending right to own expert and simultaneous exchange of reports – defendants supported registrar’s discretion under O.40 r.2(1) SCR for efficiency and proportionality – court held registrar acted within powers in both decisions – appeals dismissed and registrar’s orders affirmed.]
Decision date: 18 Aug 2025
Originating Motion No. 2 of 2025
[Application for leave to appeal – Bankruptcy – Proof of debt – Whether debt to 2nd Respondent had been satisfied – Sale of property by Official Receiver – No challenge to debt owed to 1st Respondent – Appeal filed out of time – Section 98 Bankruptcy Act (Cap. 67) – No arguable ground of appeal – Leave refused.]
Decision date: 18 Aug 2025
Originating Motion No 8 of 2024
[ Remittance Licensing – Sections 9 and 10 of the Money-Changing and Remittance Business Act Cap. 174 – Whether letter issued by BDCB constituted revocation of licence – Applicant relied on verbal assurance of renewal – BDCB issued retrospective, time limited licence under section 9 – Whether right of appeal under section 10(4) arose – Absence of revocation – Jurisdiction of Court – Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction.]
Decision date: 12 Aug 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
Criminal Trial No. 6 of 2025
[Criminal Law – Penal Code Cap 22 – Section 376(2)(c) – 2 Charges – Pleaded Guilty – Step Daughter – Position of Trust – Young Victim – 2 Different Time Period of Commission of Offence – Protection of Young and Children – Deterrence – Consecutive Sentence]
Decision date: 2 Aug 2025
Civil Suit No. 30 of 2023
[Freezing order – Mareva injunction – Breach – Substitution of assets without leave – Committal proceedings – Disclosure obligations – Orders against solicitors]
Decision date: 16 July 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.]
Civil Suit No. 28 of 2022
[Civil Case – Application For Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal – No Exceptional Circumstances or Valid Ground – Application Dismissed]
Decision date: 9 Jul 2025
Civil Suit No. 1 of 2024
[Further and better particulars – amendment to quantum claimed – whether particulars of sums now claimed should be ordered – principles to be applied
Rejoinder – now rarely granted leave – circumstances in which appropriate – whether court can order without an application]
Decision date: 23 June 2025
Criminal Motion No. 26 of 2024
[Criminal law – Rape – s. 376(2)(b), Penal Code, Cap. 22. Single charge.
Victim under the age of 14 – Sentence – Judge erred in taking the maximum sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment as starting point and discounting sentence for plea of guilty by only one sixth, on basis evidence was ‘overwhelming’ and imposing a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment, with 20 strokes. Sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment quashed.
Appropriate starting point -20 years’ imprisonment. Discount for early plea of guilty: Judge’s assessment evidence was ‘overwhelming’ irrelevant to discount. Appellant entitled to full one-third discount.
Sentence of 13 years 4 months’ imprisonment imposed on Appellant. ]
Decision date: 18 June 2025
Criminal Motion No 20 of 2024
[Criminal law – Theft in a protected place – Sentence]
Decision date: 18 June 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2024
[Criminal law – Robbery – Sentence]
Decision date: 18 June 2025
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2024
[Criminal Law – THeft in a protected place – Sentence]
Decision date: 18 Jun 2025
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.