DANIEL KROLL v CYBERDYNE TECH EXCHANGE PTE LTD & 3 Ors

[2023] SGHCR 11 High Court Registrar 2 August 2023 HC/S 915/2021 ( HC/SUM 1405/2023 )

7 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court Registrar
Decided	2 August 2023
Judge	Perry Peh
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Drew & Napier LLC, Salem Ibrahim LLC, WongPartnership LLP, Annette Kong, Kimberly Ng, Nikhil Angappan, Raeza Ibrahim, Tan Ee Hsien, Yap Zhan Ming

Source: [2023] SGHCR 11, High Court Registrar, decided 2 August 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Further and better particulars

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Perry Peh Delivered

Counsel (9)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Salem Ibrahim LLC Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm

Annette Kong Counsel for the defendant

Kimberly Ng Counsel for the defendant

Nikhil Angappan Counsel for the defendant

Raeza Ibrahim Counsel for the defendant

Tan Ee Hsien Counsel for the plaintiff Yap Zhan Ming Counsel for the defendant

Parties (5)

Cyberdyne Tech Exchange Pte Ltd Defendant

Bai Bo Defendant

Daniel Kroll Plaintiff

Lily Hong Yingli Defendant

Wong Yoke Qieu, Gabriel Defendant

Case Significance

Kroll, Daniel v Cyberdyne Tech Exchange Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHCR 11 is a reserved judgment of AR Perry Peh in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 2 August 2023 in Suit No 915 of 2021 (Summons No 1405 of 2023). The defendants applied by SUM 1405 for further and better particulars of Daniel Kroll's minority oppression claim under s 216(1) of the Companies Act against Cyberdyne Tech Exchange Pte Ltd and its directors, raising what "material facts" must be pleaded, including the source of the legitimate expectations relied on. AR Perry Peh held that the source of the legitimate expectations was a material fact requiring particulars, but that particulars need only be provided for acts or incidents of conduct relied on as a ground of relief under s 216(1).

Summary

The defendants in a minority oppression suit under section 216(1) of the Companies Act, concerning the affairs of start-up Cyberdyne Tech Exchange Pte Ltd, applied for further and better particulars from the plaintiff shareholder Daniel Kroll. The Assistant Registrar held that material facts pleaded must include the source of the legitimate expectations relied on, but that particulars were only required for acts actually relied on as grounds of relief, allowing the application in part.

What did the court decide about pleading minority oppression in Kroll, Daniel v Cyberdyne Tech Exchange [2023] SGHCR 11?

AR Perry Peh held that the source of the legitimate expectations relied on is a material fact requiring particulars in a s 216(1) Companies Act oppression claim, but particulars need only be provided for acts relied on as a ground of relief. Delivered 2 August 2023.

What was the application in Kroll, Daniel v Cyberdyne Tech Exchange Pte Ltd [2023] SGHCR 11?

The defendants applied by Summons No 1405 of 2023 for further and better particulars of Daniel Kroll's minority oppression claim under s 216(1) of the Companies Act against Cyberdyne Tech Exchange Pte Ltd and its directors in Suit No 915 of 2021.