and Indemnity Association Ltd and another, non-parties) [2023] SGHC 337 (the “Judgment”)).4 The company at the centre of this matter, British Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Limited (the “Company”), was incorporated in Bermuda on 18 June 2010 and registered under the Bermuda IA as a Class 2 Insurer effective on 15 July 2010. As a Class 2 Insurer, the Company was authorised to carry on insurance business, subject to the terms of its licence and the provisions of the Bermuda IA. Under its Class 2 licence, the Company was limited to underwriting insurance business for

different ways of answering one question: Is a fine adequate to punish and deter contemptuous behaviour? The nature of that behaviour, the motives for it, and the ameliorative and deterrent effect of a fine are all relevant factors.37 In the same case, the court listed various (non-exhaustive) considerations (Aurol at [68]), including the nature of the contemptuous act. In that regard, the court will consider to what extent the contemptuous act was egregious; and in assessing the gravity of the act, the court will consider the purpose of the order breached and the impact of that breach on that

In the Singapore International Commercial Court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC(I) 1Originating Application No 5 of 2022 In the matter of Part 11 and Section 252 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018In the matter of PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) TbkBetween(1)Irfan Setiaputra(2)Prasetio… Applicants And(1)Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company(2)Greylag Goose Leasing 1446 Designated Activity Company… Non-partiesOriginating Application No 5 of 2022 (Summons No 34 of 2023)Between(1)Irfan Setiaputra(2)Prasetio… Applicants And(1)Greylag Goose Leasing 1410

---

proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and also granted the various reliefs sought, including enforcement of the restructuring plan. In doing so, the SICC dismissed the non-parties’ objections against recognition of the restructuring proceeding and enforcement of the restructuring plan. The SICC also dismissed the non-parties’ application in SIC/SUM 34/2023 (“SUM 34”) for an order that the applicants produce certain categories of documents that were allegedly material in supporting the non-parties’ arguments against recognition and enforcement.Pertinent and significant points of the Judgment&bull

more fundamental point is that this was not a case in which the Tenant had been drawn into the wrong forum by some obscure technicality which only later came to light. On the contrary, the jurisdictional difficulty was inherent in the factual history of the tenancy arrangements from the outset. Yet, the Tenant elected to invoke and continue invoking the processes of the SCT despite that difficulty, which it should have fully appreciated.29 It bears emphasis that the SCT is a statutory tribunal of limited monetary and subject-matter jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the sentiments I expressed at

met. This is aligned with the wording of s 394H(6) of the CPC which provides that an application under s 394H of the CPC to the General Division of the High Court is to be heard by the Judge who made the decision to be reviewed, or if that Judge is not available, by any Judge. The procedure for criminal review sits in stark contrast with an appeal, where any potential error in law or fact is designed to be assessed by a different forum.9 Next, the Applicant has clearly conflated an appeal with a criminal review. The authorities cited by the Applicant in his written submissions all relate to

constitutionality with regard to the PP’s decision to prosecute the Applicant for capital offences rather than for non-capital offences (Ramalingam at [73]). The court held that the appellant had failed to show that a co-accused person who had been charged with trafficking in a smaller amount of drugs than the appellant (Ramalingam at [3]–[6]), had in fact been more culpable than the appellant (Ramalingam at [66]–[67] and [73]). 26 Next, in Nazeri, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant had not discharged his evidential burden of producing prima facie evidence of a breach of Art 12(1). This was

---

Singapore, Mr Parthiban and other parties within Staghorn Singapore were also suspects and may have committed some other offence did not mean that they occupied a like position as him: at [31].15 Mr Patnaik’s related assertion that he was made to bear the entire blame was rejected as he did not explain how the guilt of any other parties was being imputed to him. His argument that the alleged selective prosecution stood in the way of finding out the truth was also rejected, as the non-prosecution of certain parties did not mean that they were precluded from participating in fact-finding processes

Foot Note 4 ×  Applicant’s Affidavit at p 5. (1) There was no decision made by [the DR] on 5 May 2023. (2) Even if there was a decision made by [the DR] on 5 May 2023, this notice of appeal has been filed out of time and in the wrong forum. (3) Insofar as

In the Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore[2024] SGCA 2Court of Appeal / Civil Appeal No 23 of 2022Between(1)Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation)(2)Chua Suk Lin Ivy(3)Graham Robinson… Appellants AndSPGK Pte Ltd … RespondentIn the matter of Originating Summons No 16 of 2022 Between(1)Ascentra Holdings, Inc (In Official Liquidation)(2)Graham Robinson(3)Chua Suk Lin Ivy… Applicants AndSPGK Pte Ltd… Non-partyjudgment[Insolvency Law — Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings — Recognition of foreign solvent liquidation proceedings] This judgment

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 155Originating Application No 116 of 2024In the matter of Part 11 and Section 252 of the Insolvency, Restructuring andDissolution Act 2018And In the matter of Article 15 of the UNCITRAL Model Law onCross-Border InsolvencyAndIn the matter of Fullerton Capital Limited (in liquidation) (BVI Company No 1815524)Between(1)Jason Aleksander Kardachi(2)Elaine Hanrahan… Applicants AndLau Yean Liang, Raymond… Non-party grounds of decision[Insolvency Law — Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 160Companies Winding Up No 127 of 2014 (Summonses Nos 2430 and 2432 of 2023) In the matter of Section 220 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018AndIn the matter of Zhong Jun Resources (S) Pte Ltd (in liquidation)Between(1)Zhong Jun Resources (S) Pte Ltd (in liquidation)… Defendant And(1)Inner Mongolia Huomei-Hongjun Aluminium Electricity Co Ltd(2)Shenzhen Huomei-Hongjun Aluminium Trading Co… Non-partiesgrounds of decision[Insolvency Law — Winding up — Liquidator — Expunging proof of debt