KANAN PACKRISAMY V HERBAL PHARM PTE. LTD. & 3 ORS

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 2 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.

[2026] SGHC 2 High Court (General Division) 6 January 2026 HC/OC 293/2024 66 min read

11 cases cited (10 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	6 January 2026
Judge	Audrey Lim
Charges / claim	Tort, Contract, Employment Law
Counsel	Advocatus Law LLP, Gopal Perumal & Co, Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Ganga d/o Avadiar, Gopal Perumal, Saadhvika Jayanth

Source: [2026] SGHC 2, High Court (General Division), decided 6 January 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Tort — Conversion Contract — Variation — Whether term of employee’s remuneration could be unilaterally varied Employment Law — Contract of service — Whether employee’s conduct amounted to breach of employment contract — Whether employer entitled to terminate employee without notice

Practice Areas

Tort Contract Employment Law

Judges (1)

Audrey Lim Delivered

Counsel (6)

Advocatus Law LLP Firm Gopal Perumal & Co Firm Christopher Anand s/o Daniel Counsel Plaintiff Ganga d/o Avadiar Counsel Plaintiff Gopal Perumal Counsel Defendant Saadhvika Jayanth Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (10)

Herbal Pharm Organics LLP Third Party Herbal Pharm Pte Ltd Defendant Herbal Pharm Supplement LLP Third Party Herbal Pharm+ Asia Pacific LLP Defendant Herbal Pharms Direct LLP Defendant Herbal Pharms Telelink LLP Third Party Herbal Pharms+ LLP Third Party Gunasagran s/o Karupaiyah Ponnusamy Third Party Kanan Packrisamy Plaintiff Vejaiyan s/o Gunasagran Defendant

Case Significance

[2026] SGHC 2 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 6 January 2026 concerning Contract, Employment Law, and Tort, specifically addressing conversion, variation, and contract of service. The judgment was delivered by Audrey Lim. The case was brought by Kanan Packrisamy (plaintiff) against Herbal Pharm Pte Ltd and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Advocatus Law LLP and Gopal Perumal & Co. The judgment cites 11 cases (10 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Companies Act.

[2026] SGHC 2 explained

KANAN PACKRISAMY V HERBAL PHARM PTE. LTD. & 3 ORS ([2026] SGHC 2) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 6 January 2026. It is categorised under Tort, Contract, and Employment Law. 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 2 about?

KANAN PACKRISAMY V HERBAL PHARM PTE. LTD. & 3 ORS ([2026] SGHC 2) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Conversion”, “Contract — Variation — Whether term of employee’s remuneration could be unilaterally varied”, and “Employment Law — Contract of service — Whether employee’s conduct amounted to breach of employment contract — Whether employer entitled to terminate employee without notice”, 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 2 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.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 2 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 26. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Kanan Packrisamy and others brought claims against Herbal Pharm and its directors for oppression under s 216 of the Companies Act, alleging minority shareholder oppression through the diversion of company opportunities and exclusion from management. The court assessed whether the conduct complained of was commercially unfair and prejudicial to the minority shareholders' interests.

What was decided in [2026] SGHC 2?

[2026] SGHC 2 (KANAN PACKRISAMY V HERBAL PHARM PTE. LTD. & 3 ORS) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 6 January 2026 addressing Contract, Employment Law, and Tort, specifically conversion, variation, and contract of service. The judgment was delivered by Audrey Lim.

Who were the parties in KANAN PACKRISAMY V HERBAL PHARM PTE. LTD. & 3 ORS ([2026] SGHC 2)?

The plaintiff in [2026] SGHC 2 was Kanan Packrisamy, and the defendant was Herbal Pharm Pte Ltd, Herbal Pharm+ Asia Pacific LLP. Legal representation included Gopal Perumal & Co and Advocatus Law LLP. The case was decided on 6 January 2026 in the High Court (General Division).

Which judge decided [2026] SGHC 2?

[2026] SGHC 2 was delivered by Audrey Lim in the High Court (General Division) on 6 January 2026. The case concerned Contract, Employment Law, and Tort.