| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
advertisement | ||
Friday May 16, 1:17 PMHigh Court rejects Stansfield's appeal for summary judgement in suit against CASESINGAPORE: The High Court has rejected Stansfield College's application for summary judgment in its case against the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).Stansfield's appeal against paying costs to CASE was also rejected. On 13 February 2008, Stansfield filed an application at the High Court for summary judgement to be entered against CASE. Stansfield had sued CASE for suspending its CaseTrust membership in late 2006, which allegedly led to $20m in losses. Stansfield wanted a summary judgement, so the court would determine damages without going to trial. On 28 March 2008, an Assistant Registrar of the High Court dismissed Stansfield's application. At that time, Stansfield was also ordered to pay CASE costs, exceeding $5,000. Stansfield appealed to the High Court. On Thursday, Justice Belinda Ang accepted the arguments presented by CASE's legal team of Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull and Mr Chia Voon Jiet. She also ruled that Stansfield's appeal should be dismissed. CASE's lawyers argued that by seeking summary judgement, Stansfield was trying to avoid a trial in open court, where all the facts would be examined in public and witnesses would be cross-examined. CASE said it is confident that its conduct will stand up to public scrutiny and welcomes the opportunity to present its case. - CNA/vm
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2005 MediaCorp News. All rights reserved.
|