Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
CH Biovest v Envy Asset Management: Statutory Avoidance, Ponzi Schemes & Fictitious Profits
In CH Biovest Pte Ltd v Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by CH Biovest, an investor in a Ponzi scheme operated by Envy Asset Management (EAM). The liquidators of EAM sought to recover fictitious profits paid to CH Biovest under s 73B of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and s 224 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act. The court found that EAM was never contractually obligated to pay profits due to the absence of actual nickel trading and upheld the lower court's decision ordering CH Biovest to repay the overwithdrawn sums.
WVD v WUR: Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal Regarding Breach of Fiduciary Duties
WVD, WVE, and WVF applied for an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of the District Judge in WUR and others v WVD and others. The Family Division of the High Court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, dismissed the application on 3 February 2025, finding the delay unjustified, the intended appeal without merit, and potential prejudice to the respondents. The underlying issue concerns the first applicant's alleged breach of fiduciary duties as executor and trustee of the Deceased's estate.
Kiri Industries v Senda International: Minority Oppression, En Bloc Sale, and Share Valuation
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Kiri Industries Limited and Senda International Capital Limited regarding orders made by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) for oppression of a minority shareholder, Kiri, by the majority shareholder, Senda, in DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd. The SICC ordered an en bloc sale of the total shareholding in DyStar, with Kiri receiving US$603.8m in priority. Kiri appealed the SICC's decision to decline an order for interest on the purchase price, while Senda appealed the priority order. The Court of Appeal dismissed Senda's appeal and allowed Kiri's appeal in part, ordering a discretionary enhancement of the sum to be paid to Kiri following the en bloc sale, calculated at 5.33% per annum on US$603.8m running from 3 September 2023 until the date of payment.
Sw Chan Kit v Ntegrator Holdings Ltd: Winding Up Application Dispute
Sw Chan Kit, the former financial controller of Ntegrator Holdings Limited (NHL), applied to wind up NHL. The General Division of the High Court, presided over by Hri Kumar Nair J, heard the application on 24 January 2025 and ordered NHL to be wound up, finding that NHL had failed to demonstrate a substantial and bona fide dispute regarding its debt to Sw. NHL's claims of a cross-claim and discharge of debt were rejected. The court also considered a winding-up application against Ntegrator Private Limited (NPL), a subsidiary of NHL, but proceedings were stayed due to an automatic moratorium.
Vibrant Group v Tong Chi Ho: Deceit Claim over Blackgold Australia Acquisition
In [2025] SGHC 14, Vibrant Group Limited sued Tong Chi Ho and Peng Yuguo in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging deceit concerning Vibrant's acquisition of Blackgold International Holdings Pty Ltd. Vibrant claimed that Tong and Peng made false representations about Blackgold's financial health and operations, leading to the acquisition. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, found in favor of Vibrant, holding Tong and Peng liable for deceit. The court determined that Vibrant relied on the misrepresentations, resulting in financial loss. The court awarded damages to Vibrant, including the acquisition price and investigation expenses.
WTU v WTV: Division of Matrimonial Assets, Child & Spousal Maintenance
In WTU v WTV, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division), the Wife appealed the District Judge's orders regarding the division of matrimonial assets, spousal maintenance, child maintenance, and costs following divorce proceedings. The court dismissed the Wife's appeal in its entirety, upholding the District Judge's decisions on all contested issues.
ATT Systems v Centricore: Breach of Confidence, Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Conspiracy
ATT Systems (S’pore) Pte Ltd and ATT Infosoft Pte Ltd sued Centricore (S) Pte Ltd, Faruk Bin Abdul Kather, and others in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, alleging breach of confidence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, inducement of breach of contract, and conspiracy. The case arose after several employees left ATT Systems and ATT Infosoft to join or form Centricore, a competing company. Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J found in favor of the plaintiffs on claims of breach of confidence, breach of contract, inducement of breach of contract, and conspiracy by unlawful means.
PP v Muhammed Izwan & Ahmad Suhaimi: Drug Trafficking Conviction Affirmed After Remittal
In Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail, the High Court of Singapore, with Chua Lee Ming J presiding, re-affirmed its original conviction of Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan for trafficking diamorphine and methamphetamine, and Ahmad Suhaimi bin Ismail for abetting those offenses. The decision came after the Court of Appeal remitted the case to take additional evidence. The court found that the additional evidence presented by the defense did not raise a reasonable doubt regarding the original verdict.
XEW v XEV: Habitual Residence and Jurisdiction in Singapore Divorce Proceedings
In XEW v XEV, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the Husband's appeal against the District Judge's finding that the Singapore courts have jurisdiction to hear the divorce proceedings commenced by the Wife. The Husband argued he was not habitually resident in Singapore during the relevant period, but the court found that his travels were temporary and his intention was to maintain Singapore as his base. The court deferred to the Norwegian Court of Appeal's findings that the Husband had spent the last 13 to 14 years in Singapore.
XBV v XBU: Appeal on Child Custody Handover Time - Best Interests of Children
In XBV v XBU, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of Singapore, the Father appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding the handover time of their two children. The Father sought a change from Sunday evening at 6pm to Sunday morning at 9am. The court dismissed the appeal, finding it procedurally defective and without merit, emphasizing the importance of shared care and the children's best interests.