RE: Singapore Court Access2 Jun 2026 06:53
The Missing Legal Pivot
The "Assumed Truth" Rule
The previous response notes that Janice the Registrar avoided the evidence, but i didnt explain why legally.
This leaves a loophole for the lazy Ray AI argument to creep back in.
The Missing Piece, In a stay application where a defendant argues that a claim belongs somewhere else, the court operates on the prima facie assumption that the pleadings are true for the sake of argument.
The Better Argument, Registrar Janice had to look at Semnet’s statement of claim, assume the Law of Confidence was real, and test if that legal architecture fit inside or outside the SPA framework.
Assuming a claim is true to test its legal boundaries is procedural necessity, not factual validation.