SAIN FINANCE AND TRANSFER NBFI LLC v E-SOLO PRINT PTE. LTD. & 3 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chua Rui Yuan |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Pereira & Tan LLC, Richard Lim & Company Advocates & Solicitors, Lim Teck Hock Richard, Ow Joshua |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 29, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (5)
Case Significance
Sain Finance and Transfer NBFI LLC v E-Solo Print Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHCR 29 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by AR Chua Rui Yuan on 31 July 2026. The claimant, a cross-border remittance company, alleged that moneys of around $380,000 paid to the first defendant under a remittance contract were not repaid, and sued the fourth defendant, a director, for unlawful means conspiracy, lifting the corporate veil and inducing breach of contract. Default judgment was entered on 12 February 2025, and he applied to set it aside on 18 March 2026. The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, set aside the judgment, struck out the claims and ordered costs of $10,000 and $5,000.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard the fourth defendant's application to set aside a default judgment entered on 12 February 2025 in a claim over a failed cross-border remittance arrangement. It held the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against him, setting aside the judgment and striking out the claims. Costs of $10,000 for the application and $5,000 for the action were ordered against the claimant.
What was Sain Finance and Transfer NBFI LLC v E-Solo Print Pte Ltd about ([2026] SGHCR 29)?
Sain Finance and Transfer NBFI LLC v E-Solo Print Pte Ltd [2026] SGHCR 29 concerned an application by a director to set aside a default judgment in a claim over cross-border remittance moneys, on the ground that the pleadings showed no cause of action.
What did the court decide in [2026] SGHCR 29?
AR Chua Rui Yuan set aside the default judgment against the fourth defendant and struck out the claims against him, finding no reasonable cause of action. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of $10,000 for the application and $5,000 for the action.
Cases Cited (12)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHCR 29)