DANIEL KROLL v CYBERDYNE TECH EXCHANGE PTE LTD & 3 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHCR 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHCR 11 High Court Registrar 2 August 2023 HC/S 915/2021 ( HC/SUM 1405/2023 ) 60 min read

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 Defendant Kimberly Ng Counsel Defendant Nikhil Angappan Counsel Defendant Raeza Ibrahim Counsel Defendant Tan Ee Hsien Counsel Plaintiff Yap Zhan Ming Counsel 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).

[2023] SGHCR 11 explained

DANIEL KROLL v CYBERDYNE TECH EXCHANGE PTE LTD & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 11) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 2 August 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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] SGHCR 11 about?

DANIEL KROLL v CYBERDYNE TECH EXCHANGE PTE LTD & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 11) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Further and better particulars”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHCR 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGHCR 11?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHCR 11 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

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.