Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi & 2 Ors

[2026] SGHCR 10 High Court Registrar 6 April 2026 • HC/OA 1158/2025 ( HC/SUM 3759/2025 ) • 203 min read
94 cases cited (48 SG, 46 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (7)

Parties (4)

Case Significance

In Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi & 2 Ors [2026] SGHCR 10, decided on 6 April 2026, Assistant Registrar Chua Rui Yuan of the High Court set aside an order for substituted service that had been obtained without leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, where the first respondent Sreerangam Muruthi was outside Singapore at the time of service. Citing 94 authorities (48 Singapore, 46 foreign) and 8 statutes including the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, AR Chua examined whether service of originating process on a defendant outside Singapore required prior permission to serve out of jurisdiction under s 16(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, and whether material non-disclosure vitiated the substituted-service order.

Summary

Mr Beranek applied for substituted service on Mr Muruthi, a respondent located outside Singapore, without obtaining leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under s 16(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. Mr Muruthi applied to set aside the substituted service order on the grounds that out-of-jurisdiction service permission was required and that Mr Beranek had materially failed to disclose Mr Muruthi's overseas location when seeking the order. The Assistant Registrar set aside the service order and awarded indemnity costs of S$9,500 against Mr Beranek, finding the non-disclosure was conscious and deliberate.

What happens if substituted service is ordered against a defendant who was outside Singapore without first obtaining leave to serve out of jurisdiction?

In Michal Beranek v Sreerangam Muruthi [2026] SGHCR 10, AR Chua Rui Yuan held that service of originating process is the primary basis for the court's jurisdiction; a substituted-service order obtained without leave to serve out of jurisdiction where the defendant was outside Singapore must be set aside, including for material non-disclosure.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (94)

SG (6)
[2008] SGHC 36 [2016] SGHCR 7 [2021] SGCA 36 [2021] SGHC 157 [2023] SGHCR 7 [2025] SGHCR 26
SLR (42)
[1988] 1 SLR(R) 250 [1991] 1 SLR(R) 411 [1991] 1 SLR(R) 980 [1991] 2 SLR(R) 621 [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786 [2000] 1 SLR(R) 962 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 358 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 [2009] 3 SLR(R) 665 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 365 [2010] 3 SLR 1007 [2011] 4 SLR 777 [2013] 3 SLR 258 [2014] 2 SLR 545 [2014] 3 SLR 1161 [2014] 3 SLR 381 [2015] 4 SLR 625 [2016] 5 SLR 103 [2018] 2 SLR 159 [2018] 4 SLR 1420 [2019] 1 SLR 779 [2021] 2 SLR 342 [2021] 4 SLR 566 [2022] 1 SLR 434 [2022] 3 SLR 1300 [2022] 3 SLR 353 [2022] 3 SLR 777 [2022] 5 SLR 273 [2023] 1 SLR 1648 [2023] 3 SLR 1191 [2023] 5 SLR 806 [2024] 3 SLR 476 [2024] 3 SLR 807 [2024] 5 SLR 1046 [2025] 1 SLR 1020 [2025] 1 SLR 1225 [2025] 1 SLR 432 [2025] 3 SLR 607 [2025] 4 SLR 1262 [2025] 4 SLR 983
UK (46)
[1894] 1 AC 670 [1896] 1 QB 35 [1898] 1 QB 12 [1898] 1 QB 487 [1905] 2 Ch 472 [1914] 1 KB 715 [1915] 1 KB 857 [1917] 1 KB 486 [1920] AC 144 [1927] AC 95 [1966] 1 WLR 440 [1972] 2 QB 283 [1979] 1 WLR 1390 [1984] 1 WLR 874 [1988] 1 WLR 1350 [1989] 1 WLR 507 [1990] 1 Ch 433 [1992] 1 QB 907 [2002] 1 WLR 907 [2002] 3 All ER 17 [2007] 1 WLR 1219 [2011] 1 WLR 3086 [2011] EWHC 1780 [2012] 1 WLR 1842 [2012] EWHC 3539 [2013] 1 AC 236 [2013] 1 WLR 2043 [2015] 1 WLR 2949 [2015] AC 616 [2016] EWHC 891 [2018] 1 WLR 192 [2018] 1 WLR 288 [2018] EWHC 662 [2019] 1 WLR 1471 [2019] EWCA Civ 1103 [2019] EWHC 1452 [2020] AC 1045 [2022] AC 995 [2023] EWHC 39 [2024] 1 WLR 4196 [2024] AC 1063 [2024] EWHC 1138 [2024] EWHC 1764 [2024] EWHC 1961 [2025] 1 WLR 975 [2026] EWCA Civ 139

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHCR 10)