DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and others
Court | International Commercial Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Anselmo Reyes IJ |
Judgment Date | 29 May 2019 |
Neutral Citation | [2019] SGHC(I) 9 |
Citation | [2019] SGHC(I) 9 |
Published date | 15 June 2019 |
Hearing Date | 29 May 2019 |
Docket Number | Suit No 3 of 2017 (Summons No 26 of 2019) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Kevin Lee and Eunice Lau (instructed counsel, Drew & Napier LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Lim Dao Kai, Margaret Joan Ling Wei Wei and Teh Shi Ying (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Stay of proceedings |
The facts have previously been set out by this court in its Judgment of 3 July 2018 (
In the Judgment, this court ordered (among other matters) that: (1) Senda purchase Kiri’s 37.57% shareholding in DyStar on the basis of a valuation to be assessed, and (2) Kiri pay DyStar the sums of €1.7 million and S$443,813. The €1.7 million was for Process Technology Development fees (“PTD fees”) which this court found that Kiri had agreed to pay to DyStar at a meeting of DyStar’s Board on 26 and 27 October 2011. The S$443,813 was for KPMG LLP’s fees for conducting a further audit of DyStar in May 2012. This additional audit was done at Kiri’s request and, as this court held in the Judgment, on the condition that Kiri agreed (as it had done) to bear the costs of the audit. By its decision communicated to the parties on 19 July 2018, this court ordered statutory interest of 5.33% to run on the €1.7 million and S$443,813 from the date of the Writ of Summons (27 January 2016) to the date of the Judgment (3 July 2018). That interest amounts to €220,194.71 and S$57,485.45 respectively.
Kiri now applies for a stay of execution of this court’s orders that Kiri pay DyStar the sums of €1.7 million and S$443,813 together with interest. It asks for such a stay pending the valuation of Kiri’s shares in DyStar and the payment by Senda of the value of those shares. Kiri’s application for a stay was prompted by DyStar seeking an order that Kiri be wound up on account of its failure to comply with DyStar’s demands to pay the €1.7 million and S$443,813 (together with interest thereon). Kiri initially attempted to have DyStar’s winding-up application struck out as an abuse of process. But Kiri’s summons for striking-out was dismissed by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J on 22 April 2019.
The grounds for Kiri’s stay application are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial