Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: pepsu court of wards act 2008 bk Court: singapore supreme court Year: 2013 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.017 seconds)

Dec 31 2013 (FN)

Bnj Vs. Smrt Trains Ltd and Another

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-31-2013

..... . it operates to aid the plaintiff in establishing prima facie negligence where it is not possible for him to prove precisely what was the act or omission leading to his injury. in such circumstance, the court may take the accident itself as evidence of the defendant's failure to take reasonable care on the balance of probabilities. as stated by ..... - height psds109. that meant that it was reasonably safe also without interim barriers. i accept this argument. the decision to install the half-height psds was taken in 2008. the likelihood of an accidental one-under incident was infinitesimal immediately before and immediately after the decision was taken. the magnitude of the harm was also identically catastrophic immediately ..... standard of 0.4 passenger injuries per million passenger trips , and were in keeping with prevailing international practices . the decision to install half-height psds was taken in 2008 primarily to improve operational efficiency by reducing train downtime caused by track intrusions of all kinds, and to improve the attractiveness of public transport as an alternative to private transport ..... broadcast in four languages about one minute before a train reaches the mrt station, reminding passengers to stand behind the yellow line. 74. mr teo explained that since august 2008, smrt has deployed extra station personnel at platforms during peak hours on weekdays to control human traffic. smrt also initiated various customer education programs between 2004 and 2006 which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 30 2013 (FN)

Blq Vs. Blr

Court : Singapore Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-30-2013

..... is seven days. the husband in sum 30400/2013 prayed for extension of time "to apply for leave under section 34 of the supreme court of judicature act". is section 34 of the supreme court of judicature act (cap 322, 2007 rev ed) ("scja") applicable in this case? section 34 states: matters that are non-appealable or appealable only ..... prescribed period for filing the application for leave to appeal is seven days. it reads: a party applying for leave under section 34 of the supreme court of judicature act to appeal against an order made, or a judgment given, by a judge must file his application to the judge within 7 days from the date of ..... or abridge the period within which a person is required or authorised by these rules or by any judgment, order or direction, to do any act in any proceedings. (2) the court may extend any such period as is referred to in paragraph (1) although the application for extension is not made until after the expiration of ..... chien wen edwin [1991] 2 slr(r) 260 at [15], ad v ae [2004] 2 slr(r) 505 at [10], [lee hsien loong v singapore democratic party [2008] 1 slr(r) 757] at [18] and anwar siraj v ting kang chung john [2010] 1 slr 1026 at [29]). it should, however, be noted that these factors ..... an application for leave to file an appeal out of time (see, eg, the oriental insurance co ltd v reliance national asia re pte ltd [2008] 3 slr(r) 121, which pertained to the late filing of a proof of debt under a scheme of arrangement for a company). [emphasis added] the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //