Sea-Dragon Marine Services Pte Ltd v Mansoor s/o Tayabbhai Gandhi & Anor
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 10–16 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Hoo Sheau Peng |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Tort, Companies |
| Counsel | Oon & Bazul LLC, Yuen Law LLC, Cai Enhuai Amos, Krishna Elan, Prakaash s/o Paniar Silvam, Ryan Andre Wong |
Source: [2026] SGHC 166, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
Sea-Dragon Marine Services Pte Ltd v Mansoor s/o Tayabbhai Gandhi and another [2026] SGHC 166 was decided by Hoo Sheau Peng J in the General Division of the High Court on 14 August 2026 (Originating Claim No 201 of 2025). Sea-Dragon supplied boat chartering services to Tag Marine Services Pte Ltd under an arrangement from around December 2021 to December 2022, with payments made by Trans Arctic Global Marine Services Pte Ltd. There were 47 unpaid invoices totalling $1,313,639.50, and Tag Marine was struck off on 6 November 2023. The issues were fraudulent misrepresentation, the Misrepresentation Act, unlawful means conspiracy and piercing the corporate veil. The court found Mr Mansoor liable in fraud and both defendants liable in conspiracy, and ordered damages to be assessed.
[2026] SGHC 166 explained
Sea-Dragon Marine Services Pte Ltd v Mansoor s/o Tayabbhai Gandhi & Anor ([2026] SGHC 166) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 14 August 2026. It is categorised under Contract, Tort, and Companies. 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 166 about?
Sea-Dragon Marine Services Pte Ltd v Mansoor s/o Tayabbhai Gandhi & Anor ([2026] SGHC 166) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Misrepresentation Act”, “Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit”, “Tort — Conspiracy — Unlawful means conspiracy”, and “Companies — Incorporation of companies — Lifting corporate veil”, 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 166 consider?
The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50) and Misrepresentation Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 166 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 14. 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 heard a claim by Sea-Dragon Marine Services Pte Ltd against Mansoor s/o Tayabbhai Gandhi and Trans Arctic Global Marine Services Pte Ltd to recover $1,313,639.50 for unpaid boat chartering services supplied to Tag Marine Services Pte Ltd. The court found Mr Mansoor liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, and both defendants jointly liable for unlawful means conspiracy. It ordered damages to be assessed rather than awarding the full sum.
What was Sea-Dragon Marine Services Pte Ltd v Mansoor s/o Tayabbhai Gandhi [2026] SGHC 166 about?
Sea-Dragon sued to recover $1,313,639.50 for unpaid chartering services supplied to Tag Marine, a company later struck off. It alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy and sought to pierce the corporate veil against Mr Mansoor and Trans Arctic.
Was the full outstanding sum awarded in [2026] SGHC 166?
No. The court found Mr Mansoor liable in fraudulent misrepresentation and both defendants liable in unlawful means conspiracy, but held the Outstanding Sum was an expectation-based loss available only in contract, so it ordered damages to be assessed.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (10)
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 166)