ALEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH PROSETSKII V COURTWELL ASIA LIMITED & 6 ORS
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 31 August–6 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chan Seng Onn |
| Charges / claim | Companies, Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Drew & Napier LLC, Incisive Law LLC, Paul Tan Law LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Setia Law LLC, Tan Jun Hong LLC, Bernice Tan Rui Lin, Gan Eng Tong, Koh Boon Hao Samuel, Lai Weng Han, Martin Lee Wey Vern, Surabhi Bansal, Tan Beng Hwee Paul, Tan Jun Hong, Tan Mazie, Teo Sze-Myn Tessa, Zhang Haowei Elvis |
Source: [2026] SGHC 177, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (17)
Parties (8)
Case Significance
Aleksandr Viktorovich Prosetskii v Courtwell Asia Limited and others [2026] SGHC 177 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by Chan Seng Onn SJ on 31 August 2026. The claimant had obtained, at an urgent ex parte hearing on 23 December 2025, a worldwide Mareva injunction of up to US$22.5m and the appointment of interim receivers and/or managers over the crude oil tanker MT Vikram. He claimed that the Holding Companies' primary asset, the Vessel, was misappropriated, devaluing his beneficial interest in their shares. Courtwell applied to set aside the order on grounds of standing, risk of dissipation and non-disclosure. The court set the order aside as against Courtwell because there was no good arguable case, the claim being barred by the reflective loss principle, and ended the receivers' appointment. Costs of S$50,000 were ordered against the claimant.
[2026] SGHC 177 explained
ALEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH PROSETSKII V COURTWELL ASIA LIMITED & 6 ORS ([2026] SGHC 177) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 31 August 2026. It is categorised under Companies and 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] SGHC 177 about?
ALEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH PROSETSKII V COURTWELL ASIA LIMITED & 6 ORS ([2026] SGHC 177) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Companies — Members — Reflective loss”, “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Standing”, “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Striking out”, and “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Good arguable case”, 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 177 consider?
The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court allowed an application by Courtwell Asia Limited to set aside a worldwide Mareva injunction of up to US$22.5m and the appointment of interim receivers over the oil tanker MT Vikram, obtained ex parte by Aleksandr Viktorovich Prosetskii on 23 December 2025. The court held that Prosetskii showed no good arguable case because his claim for the loss of the Vessel was barred by the reflective loss principle. Costs of S$50,000 were ordered to be paid by Prosetskii to Courtwell.
Why was the Mareva injunction set aside in [2026] SGHC 177?
Chan Seng Onn SJ found that Prosetskii showed no good arguable case against Courtwell Asia Limited, because his claim for the loss of the Vessel and its profits was barred by the reflective loss principle, so ORC 7610 was set aside.
What costs and consequential orders followed in Prosetskii v Courtwell Asia Limited ([2026] SGHC 177)?
Prosetskii was ordered to pay Courtwell costs of S$50,000 all in. The interim receivers' appointment ceased, and Courtwell was granted permission to commence an inquiry into damages under Prosetskii's undertaking in ORC 7610.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
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 177)