Cao Pei v McCom Holding Limited
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Steven Chong, Sundaresh Menon |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Gurbani & Co LLC, Incisive Law LLC, Davis Tan, George John s/o KM George, Gerry Zhang, Govintharasah s/o Ramanathan, Grace Goh, Ma Ruiyuan, Wu Muyu |
Source: [2025] SGCA 24, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (2)
Counsel (9)
Case Significance
[2025] SGCA 24 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 23 May 2025 concerning Civil Procedure, specifically addressing extension of time. The judgment was delivered by Sundaresh Menon, with Steven Chong on the coram. The case was brought by Cao Pei (applicant) against McCom Holding Limited (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Gurbani & Co LLC and Incisive Law LLC. The judgment cites 20 cases (16 Singapore, 4 foreign) and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Arbitration Act and the International Arbitration Act.
[2025] SGCA 24 explained
Cao Pei v McCom Holding Limited ([2025] SGCA 24) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 23 May 2025. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. 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 [2025] SGCA 24 about?
Cao Pei v McCom Holding Limited ([2025] SGCA 24) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Extension of time — Whether a solicitor’s mistakes may weigh against a client”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 24 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Cao Pei sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration under s 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act. The delay was caused entirely by elementary mistakes of counsel, including failing to file on time and miscommunicating deadlines. The Court of Appeal declined to grant the extension, finding the intended appeal was hopeless on the merits, and directed counsel to show cause why he should not personally bear the costs of the application.
What was decided in [2025] SGCA 24?
[2025] SGCA 24 (Cao Pei v McCom Holding Limited) is a Court of Appeal decision from 23 May 2025 addressing Civil Procedure, specifically extension of time. The judgment was delivered by Sundaresh Menon.
Who were the parties in Cao Pei v McCom Holding Limited ([2025] SGCA 24)?
The applicant in [2025] SGCA 24 was Cao Pei, and the respondent was McCom Holding Limited. Legal representation included Gurbani & Co LLC and Incisive Law LLC. The case was decided on 23 May 2025 in the Court of Appeal.
Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 24?
[2025] SGCA 24 was delivered by Sundaresh Menon in the Court of Appeal on 23 May 2025. Steven Chong also sat on the coram. The case concerned Civil Procedure.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGCA 24 cite?
[2025] SGCA 24 cites 20 prior decisions, including 4 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Arbitration Act, International Arbitration Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (20)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGCA 24)