) there is a good arguable case that there is sufficient nexus to Singapore; sufficient nexus may be shown by reference to any of the non-exhaustive list of factors set out in para 63(3); (b) Singapore is the forum conveniens; and(c) there is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the claim.38 Where a defendant applies to set aside an order for service out of jurisdiction, the burden remains on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the three requirements set out above are satisfied: Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd [2014] 4 SLR 500 (“Zoom Communications

---

service of the court papers on the defendants. Decision11 The claimant had to show that: (a) there is a good arguable case that there is sufficient nexus to Singapore; sufficient nexus may be shown by reference to any of the non-exhaustive list of factors set out in para 63(3) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (“SCPD”); (b) Singapore is the forum conveniens; and (c) there is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the claim (at [37]).Sufficient nexus to Singapore 12 The claimant relied on three grounds in the SCPD to establish a good arguable case of a sufficient nexus

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 206Suit No 1052 of 2021Between(1)BGC Partners (Singapore) Limited(2)GFI Group Pte Ltd… Plaintiffs AndSumit Grover… DefendantJudgment[Contract — Mistake — Non est factum][Contract — Contractual terms][Employment Law — Termination][Employment Law — Employers’ duties] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and

Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (2020 Rev Ed) (“the MSA”), which adopts the limits under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (“1976 CLLMC”), as amended by the Protocol of 1996 to Amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. It is also not disputed that these limits are a much higher quantum compared to those under the limitation of liability regime in the PRC.The respondent’s stay application5 The respondent subsequently applied in HC/SUM 4434/2022 (“SUM 4434”) for ADM 61 to be stayed on the grounds of forum non conveniens and consequently for

In the Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore[2024] SGHC(A) 22Appellate Division / Civil Appeal No 132 of 2023BetweenWRX… Appellant AndWRY… RespondentIn the matter of Divorce Transfer 3747 of 2020 BetweenWRX… Plaintiff AndWRY… Defendantjudgment[Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division — Adverse inference drawn for non-disclosure][Family Law — Maintenance — Wife][Family Law — Maintenance — Child] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication

---

children. Pertinent and significant points of the judgment•  In the context of s 112 of the Women’s Charter 1961 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “Charter”), an adverse inference may be drawn where there was a substratum of evidence that established a prima facie case against the person against whom the inference was to be drawn; and that person had some particular access to the information he was said to be concealing. The adverse inference that would be drawn was that the non-disclosing party had more assets that were not before the court and hence what was disclosed did not fully reflect the true

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 54Originating Application No 1057 of 2023BetweenSacofa Sdn Bhd… Claimant And(1)Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd(2)SEAX Malaysia Sdn Bhd… Respondentsgrounds of decision[Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Competing arbitration and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses —Whether tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction][Arbitration — Award — Recourse against award — Setting aside — Whether award contravened foreign law and public policy — Whether award contravened Singapore public policy

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 329Originating Application No 474 of 2024BetweenFinaport Pte Ltd… ApplicantAndTechteryx Ltd… Respondentgrounds of decision[Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Anti-suit injunction][Conflict of Laws — Natural forum][Conflict of Laws — Restraint of foreign proceedings — Comity — Anti-suit injunction][Conflict of Laws — Restraint of foreign proceedings — Vexatious and oppressive conduct — Anti-suit injunction][Conflict of Laws — Restraint of foreign proceedings — Breach of agreement — Anti-suit injunction]This judgment

In the Appellate Division ofthe high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC(A) 12Appellate Division / Civil Appeal No 67 of 2023Between DBA… Appellant And DBB… RespondentIn the matter of Divorce (Transferred) No 386 of 2021 Between DBB… Plaintiff And DBA… Defendantgrounds of decision[Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division — Dual-income and single-income marriage] [Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division — Non-financial contributions][Family Law — Matrimonial assets — Division — Total value of matrimonial pool

---

significant points of the judgment•  In classifying a marriage as a “dual-income” marriage or a “single-income” marriage to which the approaches in ANJ v ANK [2015] 4 SLR 1043 (“ANJ”) and TNL v TNK [2017] 1 SLR 609 (“TNL”) would respectively apply in the division of matrimonial assets, the focus of the analysis is on the primary roles carried out by the parties in the marriage; a marriage where one party was primarily the breadwinner while the other was primarily the homemaker for most of the marriage was a single-income marriage: at [13].•  Significant non-financial contributions

contractual arrangement with implied term that nominee shareholder would be paid reasonable remuneration assessed on quantum meruit basis][Tort — Misrepresentation — Inducement — Whether representee was induced by false representation of fact to become nominee shareholder in company][Trusts — Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts — Presumption of trust arising where moneys advanced to purchase shares registered in legal name of non-paying party]This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law

Law — Avoidance of transactions — Unfair preferences — Principles — Whether grant of security and assignment of receivables to parent company constituted unfair preferences — Section 225 Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed)][Insolvency Law — Administration of insolvent estates — Statutory injunctions — Section 270 Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed)][Credit and Security — Charges — Non-registration of charges — Charge over shares of subsidiary alleged to be void against liquidator — Whether created security constituted registrable charge

sufficient nexus to Singapore; sufficient nexus may be shown by reference to any of the non-exhaustive list of factors set out in para 63(3) of the SCPD 2021; (b) Singapore is the forum conveniens; and(c) there is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the claim.19 The Judge found that all three requirements for service out of jurisdiction were satisfied. There was sufficient nexus to Singapore based on two factors set out in para 63(3) of the SCPD 2021: (a) There was a good arguable case that the claim was made to assert proprietary rights in or over movable property

---

Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 was alternatively satisfied: at [31] to [32].11 As for the Judge’s finding that there was a good arguable case that the trust arose in substance in Singapore, the other jurisdictional gateway raised in para 63(3)(p) of the SCPD 2021, the questions of whether, where and when the alleged trust arose, these raised questions of a factual character, not principle. Further, the Judge had been fully cognisant of the fund structure and stated that it did not change his conclusion: at [33].(ii) Forum non conveniens12 The applicants’ assertion in their