Goh Heng Tee v Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 14–20 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Appellate Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Kannan Ramesh, See Kee Oon |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws |
| Counsel | Luo Ling Ling LLC, WNLEX LLC, Joshua Ho Jin Le, Lee Ming Hui Kelvin, Luo Ling Ling, Ong Xin Ying Samantha |
Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 24, High Court (Appellate Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (2)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Goh Heng Tee v Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC(A) 24 was decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court, with Kannan Ramesh JAD and See Kee Oon JAD, the latter delivering the grounds of decision on 16 September 2026. The respondent sought to enforce a judgment dated 27 August 2024 of the Chinese courts ordering the appellant to return RMB 11,801,924.58 with interest, and obtained summary judgment. The appellant argued breach of natural justice for want of notice of the Second Xiamen Proceedings, and sought to adduce further evidence including a legal opinion on finality. The court found a prima facie case of actual notice, noted the appellant adduced no evidence from his litigation representative Mr Bai, and dismissed AD 28 and SUM 16 with costs of $30,000 and $10,000 (all-in).
[2026] SGHC(A) 24 explained
Goh Heng Tee v Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd ([2026] SGHC(A) 24) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 16 September 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Conflict of Laws. 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] SGHC(A) 24 about?
Goh Heng Tee v Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd ([2026] SGHC(A) 24) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Summary judgment”, “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Adducing fresh evidence on appeal”, “Conflict of Laws — Foreign judgments — Recognition — Whether judgment was final and conclusive”, and “Conflict of Laws — Foreign judgments — Defences — Breach of natural justice — Whether notice of proceedings was given”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(A) 24 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.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(A) 24 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 55, [2025] SGHCR 36, and [2024] SGHC 264. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed an appeal by Goh Heng Tee against summary judgment enforcing in Singapore a People's Republic of China judgment ordering him to return RMB 11,801,924.58 with interest to Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd. He argued breach of natural justice for lack of notice of the Chinese retrial. The court agreed there was a prima facie case of actual notice, dismissed his application to adduce further evidence, and awarded costs of $10,000 and $30,000 (all-in) to the respondent.
What was Goh Heng Tee v Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries about ([2026] SGHC(A) 24)?
It was an appeal against summary judgment enforcing a Chinese judgment in Singapore. The appellant claimed breach of natural justice because he was not served with the Second Xiamen Proceedings papers, and also sought to argue the judgment was not final and conclusive.
What did the Appellate Division decide in [2026] SGHC(A) 24?
The court dismissed both AD 28 and SUM 16, finding a prima facie case that the appellant had actual notice of the Chinese proceedings. It awarded the respondent costs of $10,000 (all-in) for SUM 16 and $30,000 (all-in) for AD 28.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (13)
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] SGHC(A) 24)