- Oon Thian Seng
- Bazul Ashhab
- Kelly Yap Ming Kwang
- Suresh Divyanathan
- Ting Chi Yen
- Lam Shiao Ning
- Chenthil Kumarasingam
- Faezah Omar
- Lionel Chan
- Laila Jaffar

 

 

Our Partners

KELLY YAP MING KWANG
Partner

Advocate & Solicitor, Singapore
LLB Hons (Singapore)

中文简介 >>

Kelly heads the Firm’s Litigation Practice.

He handles the full suite of commercial disputes, with a particular focus on disputes in the international trade and shipping industries.

His practice covers charterparty disputes, crew claims, cargo claims, salvage, bunker disputes, marine insurance, international trade, air transport claims, letters of credit disputes, freight forwarding disputes and ship chandler claims. He regularly acts for traders in all manner of disputes involving quality, shortage and cargo damage claims. Kelly also regularly deals with ship arrests, whether for the arresting party or for the owner of the arrested ship.

Kelly has also represented companies and creditors in legal proceedings involving issues of fraud and breach of director’s fiduciary duties.

In the most recent edition of Chambers Asia Pacific, Kelly was described by clients of being "a tenacious lawyer who takes a very thorough approach and is excellent on detail." Chambers has also previously described him as being “aggressive for his clients and will make his point. It is helpful to have him on a case.” Asia Pacific Legal 500 has commended Kelly for providing ‘very practical advice’.

Kelly’s notable cases include:

  • STRATEGIC WORLDWIDE ASSETS LTD v SANDZ SOLUTIONS (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD AND OTHERS (TAN CHOON WEE AND ANOTHER, THIRD PARTIES) [2013] SGHC 162 where he successfully defended one of the third parties in an indemnity claim brought by the defendants for a representation alleged to have been made by the client or his agent.
  • VVF SINGAPORE PTE LTD v SOVAKAR NAYAK [2012] SGHC 126 where he acted successfully for a company against a former director for a claim in excess of US$1 million arising from losses from unauthorised transactions and breach of fiduciary duty and also for the reimbursements of sums withdrawn from the company’s accounts. This matter raised interesting arguments on the interpretation of contracts and adducing additional evidence as an interpretive tool.
  • A.K.N WORLDTRADE PTE LTD AND 2 OTHERS v FOROUGHMAND ARABI AMIR YADOLLAH where he acted  successfully for a company to recover unauthorised expenses and loans obtained by a former director for his personal use in the breach of his fiduciary duties. The judgment obtained was for an amount in excess of S$1 million.
  • PT SOONLEE METALINDO PERKASA v SYNERGY SHIPPING PTE LTD (FREIGHTER SERVICES PTE LTD, THIRD PARTY) [2007] 4 SLR 51 where the High Court made a finding of fact on the vessel’s unseaworthiness which caused the loss of cargo. The High Court also had to consider whether the consignee was bound by the terms on the face of the bill of lading which had been incorporated into the contact of carriage by virtue of a quotation being signed by the consignee’s agent. Finally, the High Court had to determine whether a third party was liable to indemnify the contractual carrier for the losses payable to the consignee.
  • THE “SUNRISE CRANE” [2004] 1 SLR 300 where the High Court had to determine the scope of the duty of care with respect to dangerous goods. This was also Singapore’s first reported decision on tonnage limitation under the 1957 Convention.
  • HUA SENG SAWMILL CO BHD v QBE INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BHD [2003] 4 SLR 449 where the High Court had to determine whether the loss of cargo onboard a barge fell within the insured peril of “washing onboard” in a marine insurance policy.
  • THE “BONITO” [2001] 3 SLR 32 where the Court of Appeal clarified that a peremptory order has to be clear and unambiguous if it is to have any effect.
  • ZARKOVIC STANCO v OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “MARA” [2000] 4 SLR 156 where the Court of Appeal clarified that it was not a requirement that, to found jurisdiction under s. 3(i)(f) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act, a claim for loss of life or personal injury must be based on fault.

  • PAN UNITED SHIPYARD PTE LTD v INDIA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE PTE LTD [2000] 4 SLR 303 where the Court of Appeal construed the terms of an insurance policy, which was stated to be subject to the Institute Time Clauses for Builders’ Risks and whether the policy covered a claim by a third party whose yacht (which was in a nearby shipyard) was damaged because of the conversion works carried out to a bulk carrier (in the assured’s shipyard) that was the subject of the policy.

中文简介 >>

 

 

 


Tel:       (65) 6223 3893
Fax:      (65) 6223 6491
Mobile: (65) 9621 8312
Email:   kellyyap@oonbazul.com
Vcard:   Click here to download

 


 

 


Copyright © 2010 Oon & Bazul LLP. All Rights Reserved