KRISTIN ANNUS v JEKATERINA ANNUS & 2 Ors

[2023] SGHC 110 High Court (General Division) 24 April 2023 HC/OS 1050/2021 ( HC/SUM 4269/2022 ) 10 min read

5 cases cited (4 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	24 April 2023
Judge	Lai Siu Chiu
Charges / claim	Injunctions
Counsel	PDLegal LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Chua Ze Xuan, Kee Lay Lian, Kok Chee Yeong Jared, Kyle Gabriel Peters, Ramachandran Doraisamy Raghunath, Tan Chuan Thye, Yvette Tay Yu Wei

Source: [2023] SGHC 110, High Court (General Division), decided 24 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Injunctions — Interim injunction — Plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages — Whether undertaking ought to be enforced

Practice Areas

Injunctions

Judges (1)

Lai Siu Chiu Delivered

Counsel (9)

PDLegal LLC Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Chua Ze Xuan Counsel Plaintiff Kee Lay Lian Counsel Third Defendant Kok Chee Yeong Jared Counsel Third Defendant Kyle Gabriel Peters Counsel Plaintiff Ramachandran Doraisamy Raghunath Counsel Plaintiff Tan Chuan Thye Counsel Third Defendant Yvette Tay Yu Wei Counsel Third Defendant

Parties (4)

TA Activity Singapore Private Ltd Defendant Jekaterina Annus Defendant Kristin Annus Plaintiff Ljubov Skurd Defendant

Case Significance

Kristin Annus v Jekaterina Annus and others [2023] SGHC 110 is a grounds of decision of Lai Siu Chiu SJ in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 24 April 2023 in Originating Summons No 1050 of 2021 (Summons No 4269 of 2022). The third defendant, TA Activity Singapore Private Ltd, applied to enforce an undertaking as to damages given by the plaintiff, Kristin Annus, in connection with an interim injunction she had obtained against it to support proceedings in Estonia. The court ordered that enforcement of the undertaking be held over until the Estonian proceedings between the plaintiff and the first defendant, Jekaterina Annus, had been dealt with.

[2023] SGHC 110 explained

KRISTIN ANNUS v JEKATERINA ANNUS & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 110) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 24 April 2023. It is categorised under Injunctions. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 110 about?

KRISTIN ANNUS v JEKATERINA ANNUS & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 110) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Injunctions — Interim injunction — Plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages — Whether undertaking ought to be enforced”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Summary

TA Activity Singapore Private Ltd, the third defendant, applied to enforce an undertaking as to damages given by Kristin Annus when she obtained an interim injunction in Singapore supporting Estonian proceedings against her stepmother over her late father's estate. The issue was whether the undertaking should be enforced immediately or held over pending the outcome of the Estonian fraud proceedings. Lai Siu Chiu SJ ordered that enforcement of the undertaking be held over until the Estonian proceedings were resolved.

What did the court decide in Kristin Annus v Jekaterina Annus and others [2023] SGHC 110?

Lai Siu Chiu SJ ordered that enforcement of Kristin Annus's undertaking as to damages be held over until the Estonian proceedings between her and the first defendant, Jekaterina Annus, had been dealt with. The third defendant, TA Activity Singapore, has appealed.

Why did the undertaking as to damages issue arise in [2023] SGHC 110?

The plaintiff had given an undertaking as to damages to obtain an interim injunction against TA Activity Singapore Private Ltd, in support of inheritance proceedings in Estonia against her stepmother. The third defendant sought to enforce that undertaking, while the plaintiff argued it should not be enforced.