CARLSON CLARK SMITH v GOH HIN CALM & 5 Ors
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chiah Kok Khun |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP, Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o Narayanan |
Source: [2026] SGDC 190, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (2)
Case Significance
Carlson Clark Smith v Goh Hin Calm & 5 Ors [2026] SGDC 190, decided by District Judge Chiah Kok Khun on 8 June 2026, was a Registrar's Appeal (No 25 of 2026) in District Court Originating Claim No 339 of 2024, brought by the self-represented claimant, a chief financial officer, whose claim included defamation allegations relating to his dismissal. A deputy registrar had struck out the underlying action against the last remaining defendant, Goh Hin Calm, on 9 April 2026 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action under Order 9 rule 16(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021, and District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed the claimant's appeal against that decision. The judgment cites 15 authorities, 13 from Singapore and 2 foreign.
[2026] SGDC 190 explained
CARLSON CLARK SMITH v GOH HIN CALM & 5 Ors ([2026] SGDC 190) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 8 June 2026. 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 [2026] SGDC 190 about?
CARLSON CLARK SMITH v GOH HIN CALM & 5 Ors ([2026] SGDC 190) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Chief financial officer acting in person in making claims —Whether valid reason to disregard the rules and procedures — Whether leeway given to litigants in person” and “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out of pleadings — Chief financial officer making claims in defamation in relation to his dismissal — Whether no reasonable cause of action — Order 9 rule 16(1)(a) Rules of Court (2021)”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What was the outcome of Carlson Clark Smith v Goh Hin Calm & 5 Ors [2026] SGDC 190?
In [2026] SGDC 190, District Judge Chiah Kok Khun dismissed the claimant's Registrar's Appeal against a decision striking out his defamation claim, brought in person as a chief financial officer over his dismissal, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action under Order 9 rule 16(1)(a).
Cases Cited (15)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 190)