In a recent decision Peh Yeng Yok v Tembusu Systems Pte Ltd (formerly known  as  Tembusu Terminals Pte Ltd) and others [2016] SGHC 36, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming, sitting in the High Court, elaborated on the standard required to justify a search order (also known as an Anton Piller order). The Court emphasised in particular, that the onus was on the party seeking the search order to  show that  there is  a  real  possibility that the defendants will otherwise destroy documents that are relevant to the proceedings.

In Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia and  New  Zealand Banking Group  Ltd  [2016] SGCA 23,  the Singapore Court of Appeal was faced with the issue of whether a statutory demand issued to a guarantor would be deemed defective and liable to be set aside if it did not include the details of a pledge given by the  principal debtor.

Counterparties of Swiber Holdings Limited ("Swiber") and its group companies would do well to keep a close tab on any debts outstanding from the group.

Swiber, an SGX-listed company in the oil fields services sector, issued an announcement in the early hours of Thursday 28 July 2016 stating that it filed an application in the Singapore High Court for a voluntary winding up on Wednesday afternoon, together with an application to place the company under provisional liquidation.

Seah Teong Kang v Seah Yong Chwan [2015] SGCA 48

On 10 September 2015, the Singapore Court of Appeal issued a judgment in Seah Teong Kang v Seah Yong Chwan on section 259 of the Companies Act. Section 259 provides:

“Any disposition of the property of the company, including things in action, and any transfer of shares or alteration in the status of the members of the company made after the commencement of the winding up by the Court shall unless the Court otherwise orders be void.”

The Defendant served 2 payment claims on the Plaintiff for work done up to end of November 2014 in the month of December 2014. It was common ground that the revised payment claim served on 26 December 2014 (“PC3R”), replaced the earlier payment claim dated 5 December 2014. • The Defendant then served a third payment claim (“PC4”) in the same payment claim period, i.e., on 30 December 2014, this time for work done up to end of December 2014. • PC3R was not withdrawn by the Defendant.

Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 156

The liquidators of the plaintiff Dynasty Line Ltd. ("Dynasty") brought proceedings against the first defendants ("Sia") and second defendant ("Lee") for breaches of duty owned to Dynasty while they were its directors.

This table provides an overview of the key developments in 2012 to date.

"Subject to contract" clauses are often used in commercial transactions to indicate that an agreement is incomplete until the terms of a formal contract have been settled

The Singapore High Court in Yap Guat Beng v Public Prosecutor laid down the sentencing guidelines for offences of an undischarged bankrupt acting as a director or being involved in the management of a company or a business.