THE ROE CORPORATION & 2 Ors v BERHERO PTY LIMITED (TRADING AS ACUITY FUNDING)
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 28 September–4 October 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chua Lee Ming |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Drew & Napier LLC, WongPartnership LLP, Khoo Boo Teck Randolph, Koh Chiu Hwee, Sharon Ki Su Jon, Swan Low Yu Song, Teo Wei Kiat Samuel, Teo Yu Hui Frederick, Tiong Teck Wee |
Source: [2026] SGHC 201, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (9)
Parties (4)
Case Significance
The Roe Corp and others v Berhero Pty Ltd (trading as Acuity Funding) [2026] SGHC 201 was decided by Chua Lee Ming J in the General Division of the High Court, with grounds issued on 29 September 2026 after a hearing on 6 July 2026 (Originating Application No 96 of 2026, Registrar's Appeal No 117 of 2026). The claimants sought to set aside a SIAC Final Award dated 22 October 2025 that ordered them to pay a Fund Arrangement Fee of US$11.2m, alleging fraud. They applied for production of criminal complaints referred to in an affidavit filed for Acuity, which was dismissed. The issues were the differences between O 3 r 2(2), O 11 r 3 and O 11 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2021, and what "control" means. The appeal was dismissed, with costs fixed at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements.
[2026] SGHC 201 explained
THE ROE CORPORATION & 2 Ors v BERHERO PTY LIMITED (TRADING AS ACUITY FUNDING) ([2026] SGHC 201) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 29 September 2026. It is categorised under 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 201 about?
THE ROE CORPORATION & 2 Ors v BERHERO PTY LIMITED (TRADING AS ACUITY FUNDING) ([2026] SGHC 201) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Production of documents”, 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 201 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), International Arbitration Act (Cap 10), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 201 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHCR 17. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court dismissed an appeal by The Roe Corporation, 267 Partners, LLC and Buhm Jung Roe against the refusal of their application to order Berhero Pty Limited (trading as Acuity Funding) to produce Vietnamese criminal complaints referred to in an affidavit. The claimants were seeking to set aside a SIAC award of US$11.2m. Chua Lee Ming J held the claimants had not shown the complaints were in Acuity's control, and ordered costs of $15,000 including disbursements.
Why was the production of documents appeal dismissed in [2026] SGHC 201?
Chua Lee Ming J found the claimants failed to show the Vietnamese criminal complaints were in Acuity's control, since they were held by the Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security. He added that, even if in its control, there was no reason to order production.
What was The Roe Corp v Berhero (Acuity Funding) about ([2026] SGHC 201)?
The claimants sought to set aside a SIAC Final Award requiring payment of a US$11.2m Fund Arrangement Fee, alleging fraud. Their appeal concerned a refused application for production of criminal complaints against Acuity's managing director.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (14)
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 201)