LITT
Try LITT free
Novak v Newland [2024] DIFC ARB 020: The High Threshold for Public Policy Challenges in Guarantee Enforcement
How the DIFC Courts are insulating international arbitral awards from the volatility of onshore insolvency proceedings. On 1 August 2024, H.E.
Farooq Ahmad Mann (in his capacity as the private trustee in bankruptcy of Li Hua) v Xia Zheng [2026] SGHC 6
An ancillary relief order in divorce proceedings can be challenged as a transaction at an undervalue under s 361 of the IRDA if it is tainted by collusion or dishonesty.
ArcelorMittal Holdings AG v Liberty House Group Pte Ltd and another matter [2025] SGHC 77
The court dismissed an application for a moratorium under s 64(1) IRDA because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of securing the proposed scheme funding, and allowed an application for judicial management under s 91(1) IRDA as it was likely to produce a be
Re Dasin Retail Trust Management Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 6
A trustee-manager of a business trust is a 'company' within the meaning of Part 5 of the IRDA and may apply for a moratorium under s 64 of the IRDA in respect of liabilities incurred in its capacity as trustee-manager.
Re Energe Asia Pte Ltd (PETCO Trading Labuan Co Ltd and others, non-parties) [2025] SGHC 259
A moratorium application under s 64 of the IRDA is an extraordinary relief that requires the court to balance the need for restructuring space against creditor interests, with the applicant bearing the burden to prove good faith and sufficient creditor support.
Re MM2 Asia Ltd (Linkwasha Holdings Pte Ltd, non-party [2025] SGHC 251
The court granted a four-month moratorium under s 64 of the IRDA, finding that the application was made in good faith and that there was sufficient evidence of creditor support, despite the lack of a fully-fleshed out restructuring proposal at this preliminary stage.
Re Taylor, Joshua James and another (Official Receiver, non-party) [2025] SGHC 104
The court held that no trust was created over the cryptocurrencies held by the liquidators, as there was no certainty of intention to create a trust, and legal and beneficial title remained with the customers.
Zhu Su v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 31
The court held that s 244(1) of the IRDA does not require a person to be summoned to court before they can be required to produce documents, and that an examination order may be set aside if it is oppressive due to the liquidator's intention to sue the examinee.
Affert Resources Pte Ltd (in compulsory winding up) v Industries Chimiques du Senegal and another [2024] SGHC 57
The court held that while the 7 October Letter constituted a transaction at an undervalue, it was not appropriate to make a payment order because the order would not be restorative of the status quo ante.
Founder Group (Hong Kong) Ltd (in liquidation) v Singapore Commodities Group Co, Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 280
The court exercised its procedural discretion under O 3 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 to order the payment out of court of funds held as security for a winding-up application, where the underlying arbitration had concluded without a positive finding on the existence of the de
Law Ching Hung v Aw Eng Hai (in his capacity as a joint and several liquidator of Park Hotel CQ Pte Ltd (in liquidation)) and others [2024] SGHC 263
The court held that there was no multiplicity of proceedings between an application to set aside a liquidator's rejection of a proof of debt and a separate suit involving a different company, and thus no basis to stay the application.
Re Thresh, Charles and another (British Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd and another, non-parties) [2023] SGHC 337
The court held that a company does not need to be insolvent or in severe financial distress to qualify for recognition of foreign proceedings under the SG Model Law, provided the law under which the proceeding is conducted includes provisions dealing with insolvency or debt adjus
Re Attorney-General (liquidators of oCap Management Pte Ltd, non-party) [2023] SGHC 316
The court held that paragraph 14(2)(a) of the Third Schedule to the MACMA restricts the court's power to grant a restraint order where it would inhibit a liquidator from performing the act of distribution to creditors or other functions serving that purpose, and paragraph 14(2)(b
Re Aaquaverse Pte Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 29
The court will only grant an extension of a moratorium under ss 64 and 65 of the IRDA if the applicant demonstrates a reasonable prospect of the proposed scheme of arrangement working, which requires a robust and rigorous analysis of the scheme's viability.
Re Logistics Construction Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 231
A moratorium under s 64(1) of the IRDA should be granted where a company seeks protection from creditors to implement rehabilitative efforts, provided there is a reasonable prospect of the proposed scheme working.
Re All Measure Technology (S) Pte Ltd (RHB Bank Bhd, non-party) [2023] SGHC 148
A moratorium application under s 64 of the IRDA will be dismissed if the applicant fails to comply with procedural requirements (such as notice publication and creditor lists) and fails to demonstrate that the proposed scheme is sufficiently particularised and supported by credit
Amrae Benchuan Trading Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Tan Te Teck Gregory [2006] SGHC 181
The court dismissed an undue preference claim, holding that such a transaction requires a subjective desire to improve a creditor's position in the event of liquidation. Since this specific intent was not proven, the claim failed.
Eltraco International Pte Ltd v Sennet Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd and Others [2003] SGHC 40
A court-sanctioned scheme of arrangement under s 210 of the Companies Act is binding on all creditors and cannot be circumvented by creditors seeking direct payments from third parties if such payments would undermine the scheme's distribution mechanism.
Re PCChip Computer Manufacturer (S) Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) [2001] SGHC 131
The court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction over its officers (liquidators), may compel them to return money paid under a mistake of fact to prevent an unconscionable enrichment of the insolvent estate, even if the liquidators were not personally involved in the mist
Buildspeed Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Theme Corp Pte Ltd and Another [2000] SGHC 26
A transaction entered into by a company at an undervalue within the relevant time before winding up is voidable under s 329 of the Companies Act, mirroring the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act for individuals.
Re Boonann Construction Pte Ltd [2000] SGHC 130
A secured creditor is entitled to contractual interest up to the date of payment when a company in judicial management redeems a mortgage, as the judicial management regime does not abrogate contractual rights to interest.
Kao Chai-Chau Linda v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn and others
The court established that remuneration for court-appointed receivers must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, and introduced a system of 'costs scheduling' to improve transparency and cost control in insolvency proceedings.
Re Opti-Medix Ltd (in liquidation) and another matter [2016] SGHC 108
Analysis of [2016] SGHC 108, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2016-06-01.