COSMETIC CARE ASIA LIMITED & 4 Ors v SRI LINARTI SASMITO & 3 Ors

[2023] SGHCR 4 High Court Registrar 2 May 2023 HC/S 358/2022 ( HC/SUM 482/2023 ) 47 min read

11 cases cited (10 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court Registrar
Decided	2 May 2023
Judge	Andre Sim
Charges / claim	Contract, Civil Procedure
Counsel	Omni Law LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Adrian Wong Soon Peng, Lim Si Cheng, Oommen Mathew, Sarah Sim Hui Li, See Wern Hao, Sia Bao Huei

Source: [2023] SGHCR 4, High Court Registrar, decided 2 May 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contract — Breach Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation Contract — Waiver by election — Inconsistent rights Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out — Whether defendant can rely on unpleaded defence

Practice Areas

Contract Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Andre Sim Delivered

Counsel (8)

Omni Law LLC Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Adrian Wong Soon Peng Counsel Defendant Lim Si Cheng Counsel Plaintiff Oommen Mathew Counsel Plaintiff Sarah Sim Hui Li Counsel Defendant See Wern Hao Counsel Plaintiff Sia Bao Huei Counsel Defendant

Parties (9)

Cosmetic Care Asia Limited Plaintiff Facial Care Services Pte Limited Plaintiff Global Beauty International Pte. Limited Plaintiff Hair System Management Pte Limited Plaintiff OBM (Technical Services) Pte Limited Plaintiff PT Cantiksindo Utama Defendant PT Cosmeticindo Slimming Utama Defendant PT Hairindo Pratama Defendant Sri Linarti Sasmito Defendant

Case Significance

Cosmetic Care Asia Ltd and others v Sri Linarti Sasmito and others [2023] SGHCR 4 is a reserved judgment of Assistant Registrar Andre Sim in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 2 May 2023 in Suit No 358 of 2022 (Summons No 482 of 2023). By SUM 482, the 1st to 4th defendants applied under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) to strike out the entirety of the plaintiffs' action. The parties had earlier executed a settlement agreement resolving proceedings in Indonesia and Singapore; the plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached it by failing to make instalment payments, while the defendants claimed they were entitled to cease payment because the plaintiffs had themselves breached their discontinuance obligations. The catchwords cover striking out, an unpleaded defence, and contractual interpretation, breach and waiver by election.

[2023] SGHCR 4 explained

COSMETIC CARE ASIA LIMITED & 4 Ors v SRI LINARTI SASMITO & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 4) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 2 May 2023. It is categorised under Contract and 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 4 about?

COSMETIC CARE ASIA LIMITED & 4 Ors v SRI LINARTI SASMITO & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 4) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Breach”, “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out”, “Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation”, and “Contract — Waiver by election — Inconsistent rights”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

How influential is [2023] SGHCR 4?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHCR 4 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

Five related companies in the Cosmetic Care Group sued Ms Sri Linarti Sasmito and three Indonesian companies, alleging breach of a settlement agreement by failing to make instalment payments; the defendants claimed they could cease payments because the plaintiffs had themselves breached obligations to discontinue certain proceedings. The first to fourth defendants applied to strike out the entire action under Order 18 rule 19(1) of the Rules of Court 2014. The Assistant Registrar found no ground established and dismissed the application in its entirety.

What was the application in Cosmetic Care Asia Ltd and others v Sri Linarti Sasmito [2023] SGHCR 4?

The 1st to 4th defendants applied by Summons No 482 of 2023, under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court, to strike out the entirety of the plaintiffs' action before Assistant Registrar Andre Sim, decided on 2 May 2023.

What was the underlying dispute in [2023] SGHCR 4?

The parties had signed a settlement agreement ending proceedings in Indonesia and Singapore. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached it by failing to make instalment payments, while the defendants claimed they could cease payment because the plaintiffs had breached their discontinuance obligations.

Cases Cited (11)

SG (1)

[2018] SGHC 232

SLR (9)

[1991] 1 SLR(R) 844 [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 786 [2012] 4 SLR 546 [2014] 2 SLR 1371 [2015] 5 SLR 1422 [2018] 1 SLR 317 [2019] 1 SLR 414 [2021] 5 SLR 738

UK (1)

[1970] 1 All ER 1094