GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European TopSoho S.À R.L & 2 Ors

[2025] SGHCR 29 High Court Registrar 27 August 2025 • HC/OS 1193/2021 ( HC/SUM 3120/2024,HC/SUM 3121/2024 ) • 103 min read
59 cases cited (55 SG, 4 foreign)

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Joinder of parties Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Enforcement and execution Conflict of Laws — Lis alibi pendens — Doctrine of forum election — Stay Civil Procedure — Lis alibi pendens — Powers — Lifting of case management stay

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws

Judges (1)

Wong Hee Jinn Delivered

Counsel (16)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm Audent Chambers LLC Firm Breakpoint LLC Firm Oon & Bazul LLP Firm Providence Law Asia LLC Firm Chan Michael Karfai Counsel Respondent Ee Yong Chun Bernard Counsel Applicant Han Guangyuan Keith Counsel Applicant Lee May Ling Counsel Third Party Leong Hoi Seng Victor Counsel Respondent Lim Jun Heng Counsel Respondent Megan Chua Counsel Third Party Ngo Wei Shing Counsel Respondent Tan Zhengxian Jordan Counsel Respondent Teo Jin Yun Germaine Counsel Applicant Wei Ziqiang Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

Dynamic Treasure Group Limited Respondent European TopSoho Sàrl Respondent GLAS SAS (London Branch) Applicant

Case Significance

[2025] SGHCR 29 is a High Court Registrar decision dated 27 August 2025 concerning Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws, specifically addressing joinder of parties, judgments and orders, and lis alibi pendens. The judgment was delivered by Wong Hee Jinn. The case was brought by GLAS SAS (London Branch) (applicant) against Dynamic Treasure Group Limited and others (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Oon & Bazul LLP and Audent Chambers LLC. The judgment cites 59 cases (55 Singapore, 4 foreign) and references 4 statutory provisions, including the Insolvency, the Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Summary

GLAS SAS sought to lift a case management stay of Singapore proceedings against European TopSoho and Dynamic Treasure after obtaining a French judgment that could not be enforced. The court granted the lifting of the stay and allowed joinder of JPMorgan as a party to facilitate enforcement, finding that the stay had served its purpose and the inability to enforce the French judgment justified resumption of the Singapore proceedings.

What was decided in [2025] SGHCR 29?

[2025] SGHCR 29 (GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European TopSoho S.À R.L & 2 Ors) is a High Court Registrar decision from 27 August 2025 addressing Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws, specifically joinder of parties, judgments and orders, and lis alibi pendens. The judgment was delivered by Wong Hee Jinn.

Who were the parties in GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European TopSoho S.À R.L & 2 Ors?

The applicant in [2025] SGHCR 29 was GLAS SAS (London Branch), and the respondent was Dynamic Treasure Group Limited, European TopSoho Sàrl. Legal representation included Allen & Gledhill LLP and Audent Chambers LLC. The case was decided on 27 August 2025 in the High Court Registrar.

Which judge decided [2025] SGHCR 29?

[2025] SGHCR 29 was delivered by Wong Hee Jinn in the High Court Registrar on 27 August 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHCR 29 cite?

[2025] SGHCR 29 cites 59 prior decisions, including 4 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Statutes Cited

Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act
Restructuring and Dissolution Act
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)
s 14(1)
UK Insolvency Act
s 423

Cases Cited (59)

SG (12)
[2014] SGHCR 17 [2016] SGHCR 11 [2019] SGHC 15 [2021] SGHC 133 [2023] SGCA 22 [2023] SGHC 297 [2023] SGHC 90 [2023] SGHC(A) 1 [2024] SGHC 308 [2024] SGHCR 7 [2025] SGCA 32 [2025] SGHCR 25
SLR (43)
[1990] 2 SLR(R) 338 [1992] 2 SLR(R) 345 [1995] 3 SLR(R) 233 [1997] 1 SLR(R) 248 [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148 [1998] 1 SLR(R) 1014 [1999] 2 SLR(R) 955 [1999] 3 SLR(R) 410 [2003] 4 SLR(R) 780 [2005] 1 SLR(R) 409 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 358 [2006] 3 SLR 881 [2006] 3 SLR(R) 322 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 1 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 957 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000 [2009] 3 SLR(R) 582 [2010] 1 SLR 1129 [2010] 3 SLR 542 [2011] 4 SLR 503 [2013] 4 SLR 1097 [2014] 2 SLR 545 [2014] 3 SLR 1161 [2015] 5 SLR 873 [2017] 1 SLR 907 [2017] 2 SLR 265 [2017] 2 SLR 814 [2018] 1 SLR 894 [2019] 1 SLR 499 [2019] 2 SLR 372 [2019] 2 SLR 595 [2019] 3 SLR 1168 [2020] 1 SLR 1296 [2020] 1 SLR 226 [2021] 1 SLR 1102 [2021] 2 SLR 67 [2021] 3 SLR 1327 [2021] 5 SLR 1381 [2022] 2 SLR 280 [2023] 3 SLR 283 [2024] 1 SLR 1118 [2024] 3 SLR 1282 [2024] 4 SLR 1486
UK (4)
[1987] AC 460 [1989] 1 WLR 902 [1992] 1 WLR 231 [2024] EWHC 83

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHCR 29)