Kiri Industries Limited v Senda International Capital Limited and another
Singapore International Commercial Court
[2023] SGHC(I) 4 · SIC/S 4/2017 · cites 5 cases · cited by 3 cases
Step 1: What happened
This was a short decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court in Suit No 4 of 2017, the long-running dispute between Kiri Industries Ltd (Kiri) and Senda International Capital Ltd (Senda), with DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd (DyStar) as the second defendant. The SICC had earlier found Senda liable for oppressive conduct against Kiri and ordered Senda to buy Kiri's 37.57% stake in DyStar at a price assessed as at 3 July 2018.
Part of that valuation turned on compensation for the unauthorised use of a DyStar patent by Zhejiang Longsheng Group Co, Ltd to make certain dyes, measured as a notional licence fee based on the quantity of infringing Related Products. The SICC valued Kiri's shares at US$481.6m on 21 June 2021. Both sides appealed, and the Court of Appeal sent the notional licence fee back to the SICC for reassessment on the best available evidence. In Kiri v Senda (Remitted Issue), the SICC fixed the annual tonnage of the Related Products at 53,550 tonnes and asked the parties for revised figures, without any discount for lack of marketability, which the Court of Appeal had held was not a relevant adjustment.
Step 2: What the court had to decide
- Whether the notional licence fee should be recalculated on the tonnage found in the remitted decision
- What final value should be placed on Kiri's shareholding in DyStar for the buy-out order
Step 3: How the court reasoned
On 27 February 2023, following the court's directions, Kiri's valuation expert, Ms Harfouche, revised her model using the 53,550-tonne figure. She arrived at US$25.77m for the notional licence fee. Her updated model was given to Senda, which made no comments on it.
On the same basis, and with no discount for lack of marketability, she valued Kiri's shareholding at US$603.8m. Because Senda did not dispute these numbers, the court treated them as the parties' agreed calculations and adopted the valuation for the buy-out. On costs, the court drew attention to Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2022] SGCA(I) 10, the Court of Appeal's decision on how costs are assessed in SICC proceedings.
“These were taken to be the parties’ agreed calculations. Thus, based on the above, we adjudge the final valuation of Kiri’s shares to be US$603.8m for the buy-out order.”
[2023] SGHC(I) 4 at [5]
Step 4: The order
The court adjudged the final valuation of Kiri's shares in DyStar to be US$603.8m for the buy-out order, and invited the parties' positions on costs and any consequential directions, noting the Court of Appeal's guidance on costs in SICC proceedings.
Court record
Key facts
| Court | Singapore International Commercial Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Anselmo Reyes, Kannan Ramesh, Roger Giles |
| What the case was about | Companies |
Source: [2023] SGHC(I) 4, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Judges
- Anselmo Reyes
- Kannan Ramesh Delivered the judgment
- Roger Giles
Parties
- DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd Second defendant
- Kiri Industries Ltd Plaintiff
- Senda International Capital Ltd First defendant
Counsel
- Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm
- Dhivya Rajendra Naidu
- Dinesh Dhillon Singh
- Lim Dao Kai
- Margaret Joan Ling Wei Wei
- Drew & Napier LLC Firm
- Audie Wong Cheng Siew
- See Chern Yang
- Teng Po Yew
Cases cited (5)
- Kiri Industries Limited v Senda International Capital Limited and another [2023] SGHC(I) 3
- [2022] SGCA(I) 10
- [2022] SGCA(I) 5
- [2021] 3 SLR 215
- [2021] 5 SLR 111
Cited by (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
-
The Assistant Registrar allowed Courtwell's application, setting aside the order for service out of jurisdiction, the order for substituted service and the service effected, because none of the three…
High Court Registrar · 29 July 2026 · [2026] SGHCR 28 -
The High Court granted the claimant permission to discontinue the originating application and ordered no order as to costs, as the parties asked.
High Court · 22 September 2025 · [2025] SGHC 190 -
The Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ delivering the judgment, with Steven Chong JCA, Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA, Kannan Ramesh JAD and Judith Prakash SJ) dismissed the appeal.
Court of Appeal · 27 March 2024 · [2024] SGCA 10 -
The Appellate Division allowed the appeals in part.
High Court (Appellate Division) · 10 October 2023 · [2023] SGHC(A) 32 -
The High Court allowed the claim and the counterclaim each in part.
High Court · 15 August 2023 · [2023] SGHC 211 -
On the issue remitted by the Court of Appeal, the court determined the annual tonnage of related products produced by Longsheng to be 56,750 tonnes, and 53,550 tonnes after deducting the 3,200 tonnes…
Singapore International Commercial Court · 8 February 2023 · [2023] SGHC(I) 3
Read the full judgment
The judgment itself is on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC(I) 4)
This page sets out what the court decided, for learning. It is information, not legal advice. Disclaimer