Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The State Courts comprise the District and Magistrate Courts—both of which oversee civil and criminal matters—as well as specialised courts such as the coroner's courts and the Small Claims Tribunals. In 2023, there were 178,080 cases filed in the State Courts. [5]
The State Courts of Singapore (formerly the Subordinate Courts) [1] is one of the three categories of courts in Singapore, the other categories being the Supreme Court and Family Justice Courts. The State Courts comprise the District and Magistrate Courts—both of which oversee civil and criminal matters—as well as specialised courts such as ...
The Small Claims Court of the Manitoba Court of King's Bench adjudicates claims up to $15,000. [17] New Brunswick: $20,000 The New Brunswick Small Claims Court hears claims up to a limit of $20,000. The limit was raised to its current amount on 1 April 2018, and was previously raised from $6,000 to $12,500 in 2013. [18] Newfoundland and Labrador
Such efforts significantly expedited the management of cases, both in the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts. In particular, specialized courts such as small claims tribunals, the Family Court and the Night Court were set up for better distribution of cases and have also helped to significantly reduce court fees. [99]
The Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts of Singapore: A Charter for Court Users, Singapore: Supreme Court of Singapore & Subordinate Courts of Singapore, 1997, OCLC 224717046. Supreme Court Singapore: Excellence into the Next Millennium, Singapore: Supreme Court of Singapore, 1999, ISBN 978-981-04-1266-1.
This is a somewhat complete list of all Singapore Acts of Parliament which have been passed ... Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Act 2018; Smoking (Prohibition in ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Spandeck Engineering v Defence Science and Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37 was a landmark decision in Singapore law. [1] [2] It established a new framework for establishing a duty of care, differentiating the Singaporean law of tort from past English common law precedent such as Caparo v Dickman and Anns v Merton, whilst also allowing for claims in pure economic loss, which are generally not ...