JUDGMENTS

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

Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2009

[Arbitration. Insurance policy containing standard arbitration clause. Originating summons issued by insured directed to obtaining payment under the policy. Defendant filing affidavits in response directed to demonstrating that the insured’s claim was unsustainable. Insurance company taking step in the action. No jurisdiction to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration.]

Decision date: 27 May 2010

Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2009

[Land Law. Tenancy agreement – landlord in breach of covenants of quiet enjoyment and non – derogation from grant by dumping rubbish. Tenant entitled to deduct cost of removing rubbish as set-off or counterclaim when paying rent. Landlord not entitled to terminate tenancy because the tenant had erected a fence. ]

Decision date: 27 May 2010

Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009

[Land purchased in the name of son, the appellant, with a receipt executed by the appellant showing half interest in the land was held on behalf of the respondent. The appellant was thus bound by the trust. Application to admit further evidence refused because it could have been obtained before and was only confirmatory of matter already in evidence. Appeal on a question of fact not allowed. Trust to hold land on behalf of a non-citizen is not illegal. ]

Decision date: 20 May 2010

Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2010

[Pleading – non-admission by defendant to allegation of fact within defendant’s knowledge – inappropriateness – arguably evasive
Particulars sought where interrogatories more appropriate – importance of risk of increasing cost and delay by requiring further interlocutory step]

Decision date: 20 May 2010

Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2007

[Isolated offence of robbery under sections 390 and 392 of the Penal Code. Sentence of 6 years and 12 strokes imposed after plea held to be manifestly excessive. Starting point of 6 years reduced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment for the plea and other mitigating factors substituted. Proper approach on sentence to previous convictions discussed]

Decision date: 2 Nov 2009

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2009

[A certified copy of the Senior Magistrate’s decision was not annexed to the notice of appeal to the judge. The appeal was not properly constituted but the Judge wrongly refused to hear the appellants’ application for extension of time. Court of Appeal refused appellants’ application for an extension of time as his prospects of success are minimal and dismissed the appeal.]

Decision date: 18 May 2009

Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2009

[Judge’s interlocutory decision in plaintiffs’ favour on liability only. Leave to appeal necessary but leave not applied for at the appropriate time. Leave to appeal and leave to apply out or time granted on the appellants’ undertaking to pay the costs of any further appeal in the action. Appeal against liability and contributory negligence dismissed with costs. ]

Decision date: 7 May 2009

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.