Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 4463/2008 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 7 July 2009.
1. The Plaintiff argues that the question turns on the mode of execution, not on authorisation in respect of the execution of the Bushell assignment (“the assignment”). The Plaintiff no longer argues that Tam or Tan lacked authorisation, but the point is the Plaintiff has not demonstrated what the mode of due execution should be. Of course, it would be a perfect answer if, on the face of the assignment, it was written due execution by an “A” director and a “B” director, but there is no such requ
Cited by 1 case