ZIPMEX PTE. LTD. v ZIPMEX ASIA PTE. LTD. & Anor

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 298 consider?

The judgment refers to Act declaring proceedings at a meeting held for the purposes of those Parts of the Act, Companies Act (Cap 50), IRDA in the Companies Act (Cap 50), and Insolvency Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC 298 High Court (General Division) 27 November 2024 HC/OA 603/2024 ( HC/SUM 2021/2024,HC/SUM 2020/2024 ) · HC/OA 605/2024 39 min read

7 cases cited (3 SG, 4 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	27 November 2024
Judge	Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah
Charges / claim	Insolvency Law
Counsel	Prolegis LLC, Withers KhattarWong LLP, Cheang Hui Xuan, Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen, Justin Yip Yung Keong, Lam Zhen Yu, Low Hui Xuan Carrisa, Tang Yuan Jonathan, Wong Sze Qi

Source: [2024] SGHC 298, High Court (General Division), decided 27 November 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Insolvency Law — Winding up — Liquidator Insolvency Law — Winding up — Provisional liquidator

Practice Areas

Insolvency Law

Judges (1)

Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah Delivered

Counsel (9)

Prolegis LLC Firm Withers KhattarWong LLP Firm Cheang Hui Xuan Counsel Applicant Daniel Chia Hsiung Wen Counsel Respondent Justin Yip Yung Keong Counsel Applicant Lam Zhen Yu Counsel Applicant Low Hui Xuan Carrisa Counsel Respondent Tang Yuan Jonathan Counsel Respondent Wong Sze Qi Counsel Applicant

Parties (3)

Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd Respondent Zipmex Pte Ltd Applicant Ellyn Tan Huixian Respondent

Case Significance

Zipmex Pte Ltd v Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd and another and another matter [2024] SGHC 298 is a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court by Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J, heard on 19 August 2024 and delivered on 27 November 2024, in Originating Applications Nos 603 of 2024 (under s 264(2) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018) and 605 of 2024 (under s 170(2) of that Act) and Summonses Nos 2020 and 2021 of 2024. The applicant, Zipmex Pte Ltd (ZPL), applied to set aside resolutions purportedly passed at a creditors' meeting and for leave to proceed.

The court allowed the application to proceed and set aside the resolutions on the basis of substantive irregularities, and stated that the court would appoint a liquidator. The first respondent, Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd (ZAPL), applied for a converse order that the creditors' meeting was not invalid and for sealing; the court allowed the sealing order but dismissed ZAPL's application for a declaration of validity. ZPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of ZAPL, and the sole director of both companies is Mr Marcus Lim. The catchwords concern winding up, liquidators and provisional liquidators. The judgment cited 7 authorities and referenced nine statutes. ZPL was represented by Withers KhattarWong LLP and the respondents by Prolegis LLC.

[2024] SGHC 298 explained

ZIPMEX PTE. LTD. v ZIPMEX ASIA PTE. LTD. & Anor ([2024] SGHC 298) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 27 November 2024. It is categorised under Insolvency Law. 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 [2024] SGHC 298 about?

ZIPMEX PTE. LTD. v ZIPMEX ASIA PTE. LTD. & Anor ([2024] SGHC 298) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Insolvency Law — Winding up — Liquidator” and “Insolvency Law — Winding up — Provisional liquidator”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 298 consider?

The judgment refers to Act declaring proceedings at a meeting held for the purposes of those Parts of the Act, Companies Act (Cap 50), IRDA in the Companies Act (Cap 50), and Insolvency Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Zipmex Pte Ltd, a wound-up subsidiary acting through its liquidator, applied to set aside resolutions purportedly passed at a creditors' meeting of its parent Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd and for leave to proceed, while Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd sought a converse order declaring the meeting valid and a sealing order, raising issues concerning the appointment of a liquidator and a provisional liquidator. The General Division of the High Court allowed the application to proceed and set aside the resolutions on the basis of substantive irregularities, granted the sealing order but dismissed the declaration of validity. The court held that acts done in the liquidation before the date of the decision were valid while subsequent acts would be void, and determined that the appropriate course was for the court to appoint a liquidator under section 173 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, with directions to follow on nominations and costs.

What did the court decide in Zipmex Pte Ltd v Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 298?

In Zipmex Pte Ltd v Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 298, Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J set aside resolutions passed at a creditors' meeting on the basis of substantive irregularities, allowed Zipmex Pte Ltd's application to proceed, and indicated the court would appoint a liquidator.

What happened to Zipmex Asia's counter-application in [2024] SGHC 298?

In Zipmex Pte Ltd v Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 298, the first respondent Zipmex Asia Pte Ltd sought a converse order that the creditors' meeting was valid, plus a sealing order. Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah J allowed the sealing order but dismissed the declaration of validity.