KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v SENDA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED & Anor [2024] SGHC(I) 25 (29 August 2024)

KIRI INDUSTRIES LIMITED v SENDA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL LIMITED & Anor [2024] SGHC(I) 25 (29 August 2024)

Kiri was the successful party in SUM 24 as its application for substitute relief was necessitated by Senda's failure to comply with the Buy-Out Order. However, neither party succeeded on all issues, so Kiri is entitled to only 40% of its costs against Senda. DyStar's involvement was necessitated by Kiri's claims,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] SGHC(I) 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Kiri Industries Ltd; First Defendant: Senda International Capital Ltd; Second Defendant: DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
29 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Suit / Post Substitute Relief, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs apportioned: Senda to pay 40% of Kiri's costs and disbursements; Kiri to pay 50% of DyStar's costs and disbursements.
Legal Topics
Costs, En Bloc Sale, Priority of Distribution, Appointment of Receivers
Civil Procedure Costs En Bloc Sale Priority of Distribution Appointment of Receivers

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiri Industries Ltd

Plaintiff

Senda International Capital Ltd

First Defendant

DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Suit / Post Substitute Relief, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for costs in SUM 24?
  2. 2 What proportion of costs should be awarded between Kiri and Senda?
  3. 3 What proportion of costs should be awarded between Kiri and DyStar?

Ratio Decidendi

Kiri was the successful party in SUM 24 as its application for substitute relief was necessitated by Senda's failure to comply with the Buy-Out Order. However, neither party succeeded on all issues, so Kiri is entitled to only 40% of its costs against Senda. DyStar's involvement was necessitated by Kiri's claims, but DyStar improperly made submissions on issues outside its proper role; thus, DyStar is entitled to only 50% of its costs from Kiri.

Court Disposition

Costs apportioned: Senda to pay 40% of Kiri's costs and disbursements; Kiri to pay 50% of DyStar's costs and disbursements.

Orders

  • Senda to pay Kiri S$360,050 in costs, S$17,053.81 and US$6,415.18 in disbursements.
  • Kiri to pay DyStar S$125,705 in costs, S$8,126.91 and US$1,223.57 in disbursements.