ROLL SG PTE. LTD. v CONG TY CO PHAN VAN TAI LIEN HIEP HUY HOANG
Key facts
| Court | Singapore International Commercial Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Anselmo Reyes |
| Charges / claim | Contract |
| Counsel | Drew & Napier LLC, sole proprietor, Eunice Lau Guan Ting, Lee Soong Yan Kevin, Samuel Wittberger |
Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 5, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Roll SG Pte Ltd v Cong Ty Co Phan Van Tai Lien Hiep Huy Hoang [2023] SGHC(I) 5 is a reserved judgment of Anselmo Reyes IJ in the Singapore International Commercial Court, delivered on 25 April 2023 in Suit No 9 of 2021. The dispute arose from crane rental agreements under which Roll SG Pte Ltd leased a CC6800 crawler crane to the defendant, HTL, for construction and installation works at the Tra Vinh Wind Farm Offshore Project in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam; the crane was severely damaged while being transported by HTL on 2 November 2020. Roll seeks damages for breach of contract of €5,108,764.93, US$1,215,844.13 and S$96,641.60 for the repair and return of the crane, plus rental sums and late payment interest of at least US$3,982,351.60, while HTL denied the court's jurisdiction and did not appear to defend the action.
What was Roll SG Pte Ltd v Cong Ty Co Phan Van Tai Lien Hiep Huy Hoang [2023] SGHC(I) 5 about?
Anselmo Reyes IJ heard Roll SG Pte Ltd's claim in the Singapore International Commercial Court for damages arising from breach of crane rental agreements after a CC6800 crawler crane leased to the defendant was severely damaged during transport on 2 November 2020. Delivered 25 April 2023.
What damages did Roll SG Pte Ltd claim in Roll SG Pte Ltd v Cong Ty Co Phan Van Tai Lien Hiep Huy Hoang [2023] SGHC(I) 5?
Roll SG Pte Ltd claimed damages of €5,108,764.93, US$1,215,844.13 and S$96,641.60 for repairing and returning the crane, plus rental sums and late payment interest of at least US$3,982,351.60. The defendant denied the court's jurisdiction and did not appear.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC(I) 5)