VIVAZ GROUP HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. v TRIPLEONE (CAMBODIA) INVESTMENT PTE. LTD.

VIVAZ GROUP HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. v TRIPLEONE (CAMBODIA) INVESTMENT PTE. LTD.

The General Division has inherent powers under O15 r12(4) ROC 2021 to permit the filing of a protective writ after dismissal of a derivative action application and while an appeal is pending where necessary to prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory by imminent limitation expiry; the order is proper where there is a real need, the balance of convenience favors preservation, there is no undue prejudice (mitigated by undertakings not to serve), no inordinate delay by applicant, and the appeal is not plainly bound to fail.

Citation
[2025] SGHC 202
Parties
Claimant: Vivaz Group Holdings Pte Ltd; Defendant (company): TripleOne (Cambodia) Investment Pte Ltd; Non‑party (potential Defendant): Lee Kok Heng Jeremiah
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
14 October 2025
Case Number
HC/OA 1330/2024 ( HC/SUM 2319/2025 )
Procedural Posture
Originating Application Under S 216 a Companies Act (statutory Derivative Action) / Permission to File Protective Writ (summons) After First Instance Dismissal; Appeal Pending to Appellate Division (ca 54/2025)
Outcome
Summons granted
Legal Topics
Protective Writ, Derivative Action, Functus Officio, Stay Pending Appeal/erinford Injunction, Limitation Period, Leave to Commence Derivative Action, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Companies Limitation of Actions Inherent Powers Protective Writ Derivative Action Functus Officio Stay Pending Appeal/erinford Injunction +3 more

Case Brief

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 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivaz Group Holdings Pte Ltd

Claimant

TripleOne (Cambodia) Investment Pte Ltd

Defendant (company)

Lee Kok Heng Jeremiah

Non‑party (potential Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Originating Application Under S 216 a Companies Act (statutory Derivative Action) / Permission to File Protective Writ (summons) After First Instance Dismissal; Appeal Pending to Appellate Division (ca 54/2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division had power to permit filing of a protective writ after dismissal of a derivative action application and while an appeal is pending
  2. 2 Whether s 216A(5) Companies Act or Rules of Court/O15 r12(4) or O3 r2(2) provide legal basis
  3. 3 Whether doctrine of functus officio prevents such an order

Ratio Decidendi

The General Division has inherent powers under O15 r12(4) ROC 2021 to permit the filing of a protective writ after dismissal of a derivative action application and while an appeal is pending where necessary to prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory by imminent limitation expiry; the order is proper where there is a real need, the balance of convenience favors preservation, there is no undue prejudice (mitigated by undertakings not to serve), no inordinate delay by applicant, and the appeal is not plainly bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Summons granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to file a protective writ by way of an originating claim on behalf of TripleOne (Cambodia) Investment Pte Ltd
  • Protective writ must not be served on the Potential Defendants pending determination of Appellate Division appeal CA 54/2025 unless otherwise directed