NASRAT LUCAS MUZAYYIN v THE TYRELL SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED & 2 Ors

NASRAT LUCAS MUZAYYIN v THE TYRELL SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED & 2 Ors

The court held that a declaration that a purported loan agreement is unenforceable is not sensibly an action 'founded on a contract' for the purposes of s 6(1)(a) because its premise is absence of a contract and no identifiable cause of action accrues; the promissory estoppel declaration did not involve a cause of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] SGHCR 38
Parties
Claimant: Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin; First Defendant: The Tyrell Solution Private Limited; Second Defendant: Tyrell Offshore Solutions Private Limited; Third Defendant: Peter James Bartlett
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
10 December 2025
Case Number
HC/OC 585/2025 ( HC/SUM 2515/2025 )
Procedural Posture
Originating Claim No 585 of 2025 / Application to Strike Out (dismissed)
Outcome
Defendants' strike-out application dismissed
Legal Topics
Sham Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Cause of Action Accrual, Declarations and Limitation, Accrual of Cause of Action Under S 6 Limitation Act, Alternative Contingent Claims
Source Language
english
Limitation of Actions Contract Law Equity Declaratory Relief Estoppel Sham Contract Promissory Estoppel Cause of Action Accrual +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin

Claimant

The Tyrell Solution Private Limited

First Defendant

Tyrell Offshore Solutions Private Limited

Second Defendant

Peter James Bartlett

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Claim No 585 of 2025 / Application to Strike Out (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a declaration that a contract is unenforceable is an action 'founded on a contract' within s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act and whether a cause of action has accrued
  2. 2 Whether a claim that a party is estopped from enforcing a contract (promissory estoppel) constitutes a cause of action for limitation purposes under s 6(7)
  3. 3 When the cause of action accrues for the claimant's alternative claim against TOSPL for unpaid brokering fee if the disputed loan agreement is found enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a declaration that a purported loan agreement is unenforceable is not sensibly an action 'founded on a contract' for the purposes of s 6(1)(a) because its premise is absence of a contract and no identifiable cause of action accrues; the promissory estoppel declaration did not involve a cause of action under s 6(7) because estoppel does not create new causes of action; the claimant's alternative claim against TOSPL only crystallises if and when the court finds the loan enforceable (that finding is an operative fact triggering accrual), therefore limitation did not bar the pleaded claims and the strike-out application failed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' strike-out application dismissed

Orders

  • First and second defendants to pay claimant costs of and incidental to the application fixed at $12,000