Lau Yean Liang, Raymond v JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & Anor

[2025] SGCA 11 Court of Appeal 13 March 2025 • CA/CA 28/2024 ( CA/SUM 31/2024 ) • 99 min read
54 cases cited (41 SG, 13 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Catchwords

Insolvency Law — Cross-border insolvency — Disclosure and examination orders — Whether disclosure and examination orders unreasonable, oppressive or unnecessary Insolvency Law — Cross-border insolvency — Allegation of bad faith and material non-disclosure against foreign representatives — Whether recognition would be contrary to public policy — Art 6 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency Insolvency Law — Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings — Presumption of COMI as place of registered office — Effect of presumption — Whether presumption rebutted on the balance of probabilities — Art 16(3) UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency

Practice Areas

Insolvency Law

Judges (3)

Judith Prakash Coram Kannan Ramesh Coram Steven Chong Delivered

Counsel (7)

Setia Law LLC Firm Sreenivasan Chambers LLC Firm Mah Hao Ran Ian Counsel Respondent Muralli Rajaram Counsel Appellant Narayanan Sreenivasan Counsel Appellant Sathya Justin Narayanan Counsel Appellant Yam Wern Jhien Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

Fullerton Capital Limited Third Party Elaine Hanrahan Respondent Jason Aleksander Kardachi Respondent Lau Yean Liang, Raymond Appellant

Case Significance

[2025] SGCA 11 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 13 March 2025 concerning Insolvency Law, specifically addressing cross-border insolvency. The judgment was delivered by Steven Chong, with Judith Prakash and Kannan Ramesh on the coram. The case was brought by Lau Yean Liang, Raymond (appellant) against Elaine Hanrahan and others (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Sreenivasan Chambers LLC and Setia Law LLC. The judgment cites 54 cases (41 Singapore, 13 foreign) and references 6 statutory provisions, including the English Insolvency Act, the Evidence Act, and the Insolvency. This decision has been cited by 2 subsequent judgments in the dataset.

Summary

Raymond Lau appealed against a court order recognising the BVI liquidation of Fullerton Capital Limited as foreign main proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law and granting disclosure and examination orders against him. The key issues were whether Fullerton's centre of main interests (COMI) was in the BVI or Singapore, whether the foreign representatives acted in bad faith, and whether the disclosure orders were oppressive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the COMI presumption at the place of registration was not rebutted and the public policy exception was not engaged.

What was decided in [2025] SGCA 11?

[2025] SGCA 11 (Lau Yean Liang, Raymond v JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & Anor) is a Court of Appeal decision from 13 March 2025 addressing Insolvency Law, specifically cross-border insolvency. The judgment was delivered by Steven Chong.

Who were the parties in Lau Yean Liang, Raymond v JASON ALEKSANDER KARDACHI & Anor?

The appellant in [2025] SGCA 11 was Lau Yean Liang, Raymond, and the respondent was Elaine Hanrahan, Jason Aleksander Kardachi. Legal representation included Setia Law LLC and Sreenivasan Chambers LLC. The case was decided on 13 March 2025 in the Court of Appeal.

Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 11?

[2025] SGCA 11 was delivered by Steven Chong in the Court of Appeal on 13 March 2025. Judith Prakash and Kannan Ramesh also sat on the coram. The case concerned Insolvency Law.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGCA 11 cite?

[2025] SGCA 11 cites 54 prior decisions, including 13 from foreign jurisdictions. It references English Insolvency Act, Evidence Act, Insolvency. The decision has itself been cited by 2 subsequent judgments.

Statutes Cited

English Insolvency Act
s 236
Evidence Act (Cap 97)
s 3(3)
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act
Interpretation Act (Cap 1)
s 9A(3)(f)
Restructuring and Dissolution Act
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration which Hong Kong has adopted in its Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609)

Cases Cited (54)

SG (8)
[2018] SGHC 172 [2022] SGHC 299 [2023] SGHC 82 [2024] SGHC 130 [2024] SGHC 155 [2024] SGHC 302 [2025] SGHC 31 [2025] SGHC(I) 5
SLR (33)
[1992] 1 SLR(R) 912 [1995] 2 SLR(R) 900 [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1136 [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 [2010] 1 SLR 286 [2010] 3 SLR 1007 [2011] 1 SLR 391 [2012] 4 SLR 250 [2013] 4 SLR 308 [2014] 3 SLR 1161 [2014] 4 SLR 500 [2015] 3 SLR 665 [2017] 2 SLR 265 [2018] 2 SLR 159 [2018] 5 SLR 125 [2019] 2 SLR 341 [2019] 2 SLR 372 [2019] 4 SLR 1343 [2020] 1 SLR 1296 [2020] 1 SLR 226 [2020] 2 SLR 695 [2023] 2 SLR 421 [2023] 3 SLR 1333 [2023] 3 SLR 250 [2023] 4 SLR 1575 [2024] 1 SLR 361 [2024] 2 SLR 317 [2024] 3 SLR 254 [2025] 1 SLR 19
UK (13)
[1954] 1 WLR 1489 [1970] AC 913 [1985] 1 WLR 948 [2006] Ch 508 [2011] Ch 33 [2015] EWHC 3778 [2020] EWHC 2090 [2021] 1 WLR 2498 [2021] EWHC 3346 [2022] AC 995 [2023] EWHC 2205 [2024] 3 WLR 659 [2024] EWHC 3399

Cited By (2)

[2025] SGHC 82
Teras Lyza Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors v Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. & 4 Ors
[2025] SGHC 67
KING & WOOD MALLESONS

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGCA 11)