ARMIRA CAPITAL LIMITED v JI ZENGHE & 2 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Gan Kam Yuin |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Harry Elias Partnership LLP, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Audrey Foo Xue Ning, Chong Ee Jin, Gan Eng Tong, Kok Yee Keong (Guo Yiqiang), Tan Chau Yee, Wayne Yeo (Yang Weien), Yeap Poh Leong Andre |
Source: [2025] SGHCR 18, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (9)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHCR 18 is a High Court Registrar decision dated 20 June 2025 concerning Civil Procedure, specifically addressing costs. The judgment was delivered by Gan Kam Yuin. The case was brought by Armira Capital Ltd (applicant) against Oriental Straits Fund III and others (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and Harry Elias Partnership LLP. The judgment cites 16 cases (12 Singapore, 4 foreign) and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
[2025] SGHCR 18 explained
ARMIRA CAPITAL LIMITED v JI ZENGHE & 2 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 18) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 20 June 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] SGHCR 18 about?
ARMIRA CAPITAL LIMITED v JI ZENGHE & 2 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 18) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Costs — Assessment”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHCR 18 consider?
The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Armira Capital, a UK-based financial advisory company, sought assessment of costs on an indemnity basis after successfully setting aside default judgments and obtaining dismissal of proceedings brought against it in Singapore. The court assessed costs at S$609,085 across three sets of orders, applying principles for both pre- and post-transfer periods, and accepted Armira's approach of first applying a co-defendant's indemnity against unrecovered out-of-pocket costs before reducing the assessed amount.
What was decided in [2025] SGHCR 18?
[2025] SGHCR 18 (ARMIRA CAPITAL LIMITED v JI ZENGHE & 2 Ors) is a High Court Registrar decision from 20 June 2025 addressing Civil Procedure, specifically costs. The judgment was delivered by Gan Kam Yuin.
Who were the parties in ARMIRA CAPITAL LIMITED v JI ZENGHE & 2 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 18)?
The applicant in [2025] SGHCR 18 was Armira Capital Ltd, and the respondent was Oriental Straits Fund III, Fan Xianyong. Legal representation included Harry Elias Partnership LLP and Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. The case was decided on 20 June 2025 in the High Court Registrar.
Which judge decided [2025] SGHCR 18?
[2025] SGHCR 18 was delivered by Gan Kam Yuin in the High Court Registrar on 20 June 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHCR 18 cite?
[2025] SGHCR 18 cites 16 prior decisions, including 4 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (16)
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] SGHCR 18)