Olea Global Pte. Ltd. v Energe Asia Pte. Ltd.

Olea Global Pte Ltd applied in Companies Winding Up No 422 of 2025 to wind up Energe Asia Pte Ltd (EAPL), a fuel wholesaler, for inability to pay its debts under s 125(1)(e) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. Olea claimed US$3,553,823.76 in principal under three invoices: two Oilmar invoices whose receivables Olea had bought from EAPL under a receivables finance deed (the RPD), and a Fu Yu invoice whose receivables Olea had bought from a third party, Fu Yu, which gave EAPL notice of the assignment. It was undisputed that EAPL did not pay in full. In February 2025 EAPL's director replied to Olea's proposed repayment plan that EAPL would "commit to your payment plan as advised", made some payments, then defaulted.

After a letter of demand, EAPL raised changing grounds of dispute, and after Olea's statutory demand of 25 September 2025 went unmet it raised new ones: that there was no agreement obliging it to pay the Fu Yu sums to Olea, and counterclaims for about US$27m of allegedly mistaken payments and for customers' payments on unfactored invoices. It started arbitration and sought a stay or dismissal. Its moratorium application had been dismissed in Re Energe Asia Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 259, where the judge found it was not brought in good faith and said a pattern of transactions suggested possible asset stripping.

1. Whether the disputes over all three invoices fell within a valid arbitration agreement, so that only the lower prima facie standard applied.
2. Whether EAPL raised triable issues as to the Fu Yu invoice debt, including through its mistaken payment counterclaims.
3. Whether, even if the disputes were within an arbitration agreement, they were raised in abuse of the court's process.

On the arbitration point, the RPD clause covered disputes about transactions between the parties, but the Fu Yu debt came from an assignment by a third party under a separate contract. The court refused EAPL's mid-hearing request for an adjournment to file another affidavit, as the clause's scope was a legal question. EAPL then relied on an arbitration clause in a payment undertaking deed it had given. The court rejected this: the deed was a unilateral document, Olea relied on the statutory assignment under s 4(8) of the Civil Law Act 1909 rather than the deed, and EAPL had denied on affidavit that any such arrangement existed, so it could not rely on that agreement's clause, following Founder Group (Hong Kong) Ltd v Singapore JHC Co Pte Ltd [2023] 2 SLR 554.

On triable issues, Olea produced unrefuted documents showing a valid assignment and written notice. EAPL's own emails showed it had agreed to pledge the customer payments it now called mistaken. The US$27m counterclaim listed 50 payments without identifying invoices or explaining why they were mistaken; the court held that a debtor relying on past mistaken payments must give enough particulars for the counterclaim to be plausible, and found it hard to believe errors on that scale surfaced only after the statutory demand.

On abuse of process, applying AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) [2020] 1 SLR 1158, the court would have refused a stay anyway. EAPL had admitted liability and quantum through the repayment plan without a convincing reason for changing its position, still set off a large Oilmar sum as owing, and its shifting case looked like a debtor making things up as it went along.

The court allowed the application and ordered that EAPL be wound up, granting an order in terms of CWU 422/2025. It held that the Fu Yu invoice debt was not covered by any agreement to arbitrate, that EAPL raised no triable issue on it, and that the statutory presumption of inability to pay therefore applied.