EXTERIAN CAPITAL PTE LTD v ADRIAN WONG JUN JIE & Anor

EXTERIAN CAPITAL PTE LTD v ADRIAN WONG JUN JIE & Anor

Allowed the disputed amendments because the matter was not at an advanced stage of proceedings, the proposed amendments would assist in resolving the real issues (who authorised and how the Four Payments were utilised), the amendments were supported by documentary evidence disclosed in committal proceedings and were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] SGHCR 40
Parties
Claimant: Exterian Capital Pte Ltd; First Defendant: Adrian Wong Jun Jie; Second Defendant: Josephine Louise Richardson Limited
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
30 December 2025
Case Number
HC/OC 719/2023 ( HC/SUM 3028/2025 )
Procedural Posture
Originating Claim (oc 719 of 2023) With Amendment Summons (sum 3028 of 2025) / Application to Amend Defence at Pleadings Stage (order 9 R 14 ROC 2021)
Outcome
Amendment application allowed (SUM 3028/2025)
Legal Topics
Pleadings Amendment, Order 9 R 14 ROC 2021, Mareva and Proprietary Injunctions, Disclosure Obligations, Committal Proceedings, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Injunctions Contempt Commercial Litigation Pleadings Amendment Order 9 R 14 ROC 2021 Mareva and Proprietary Injunctions Disclosure Obligations +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Exterian Capital Pte Ltd

Claimant

Adrian Wong Jun Jie

First Defendant

Josephine Louise Richardson Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Claim (oc 719 of 2023) With Amendment Summons (sum 3028 of 2025) / Application to Amend Defence at Pleadings Stage (order 9 R 14 ROC 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendments were sought at a late stage and justified
  2. 2 Whether the amendments would enable the real question in controversy to be determined or were made in bad faith
  3. 3 Whether the amendments amounted to a second bite of the cherry and would cause prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs

Ratio Decidendi

Allowed the disputed amendments because the matter was not at an advanced stage of proceedings, the proposed amendments would assist in resolving the real issues (who authorised and how the Four Payments were utilised), the amendments were supported by documentary evidence disclosed in committal proceedings and were not shown to be made in bad faith, and any prejudice to the claimant could be compensated by costs; peculiar facts (evidence emerging in committal process) justified permitting a material recast of the Defence.

Court Disposition

Amendment application allowed (SUM 3028/2025)

Orders

  • Undisputed amendments in the Defence granted
  • Disputed amendments (Requestor, Payment and consequential Utilisation amendments) to the Defence granted