Judgment Header
Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 6
Court DecisionSGCA
[2007] SGCA 6
[2007] SGCA 6
Court of Appeal of Singapore13 Feb 2007CA 48/2006
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 7 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
7Later cases and laws citing this decision
“Homes v Smith [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 139. Petroleo Brasileiro SA v ENE Kos 1 Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1127. Sanjung Suria Sdn Bhd v PLB-KH Bina Sdn Bhd [2014] 7 MLJ 125. Metalform Asia v Holland Leedon [2007] SGCA 6. Sime Darby Energy Solution Sdn Bhd v RZH Setia Jaya Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 MLJ 428. Josu Engineering Construction”
“15. Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v. Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 6.”
“tinguish the debt, the Court should grant the injunction to allow the cross claim to be proved instead of allowing the winding-up petition to be filed (Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 6 at [82]). [28] I agree with learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the Intended Petition in respect of the”
“Chee Lin J in Awangsa (supra). [32] Next, I should consider whether to grant the Fortuna injunction, based on the test in Tan Kok Tong (supra) and Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 6, CA in that the court must be satisfied that the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial S/N l/QxvltED0GcCrKe”
- CitedS & S QUEST RESOURCES SDN BHD v JEWEL BUILDERS & RESOURCES (M) SDN BHD (WA-24NCC-146-03/2023)Case
“Bhd (formerly known as United Merchant Finance Bhd) [2006] 2 MLJ 602 11. Josu Engineering Construction Sdn Bhd v TSR Bina Sdn Bhd [2014] 11 MLJ 916 12. Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 6 LEGISLATION REFERENCE:”
Show 2 moreShow fewer
“ut in jeopardy by the premature presentation of a winding up petition against it where it has a serious cross-claim based on substantial grounds [See: Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v. Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 6; Pontian United Theatre Sdn Bhd v. Southern Finance Berhad [2006] 1 CLJ 1067; Josu Engineering Constructio”
“n quoted the following: [50] In so holding, her Ladyship was clearly persuaded by the policy consideration stated by the Chief Justice of Singapore in Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] SGCA 6 where his Lordship said as follows: ... The policy concerns may be stated to be as follows. First, a credit”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: CA 48/2006
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2007-02-13
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.