[2015] SGCA 57

“pihak kepada perjanjian timbang tara. Mereka merujuk Dato’ Ler Cheng Chye & Anor v Aturan Prisma Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] MLRHU 654; [2025] 4 AMR 822 dan Tomolugen Holdings Ltd 21 v Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 57, yang antara lain menyatakan: "The parties do not dispute the court’s inherent power to stay court proceed”

“[78] | had the fortune considering the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd; and others appeals [2015] SGCA 57 (CA). It is a most comprehensive judgment pertaining to a stay application in favour of arbitration. It also pertained to the rights of”

“[29] | also note that the Court of Appeal in Padda Gurtaj Singh (supra) relied on the Singapore decision of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57 where the Singapore Court of Appeal stayed a minority oppression action in relation to a solvent company and the parties”

“n the third defendant’s name. [78] I had the fortune considering the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd; and others appeals [2015] SGCA 57 (CA). It is a most comprehensive judgment pertaining to a stay application in favour of arbitration. It al”

“(iii) Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57 “[105] ... But, aside from this, we accept that there will be a measure of procedural complexity whenever a dispute involving some common parties and issues has to be resolved before two difference”

“(xvi) Thereafter in the Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and 57 other appeals [2015] SGCA 57, the plaintiff sought relief under section 216 of the Companies Act for oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct towards it as a minority shareholder which again”

“ustralia and Singapore was anaylsed. The Court found that the options as outlined by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Tomolugen 26 Holdings Ltd And Another v. Silica Investors Ltd and Other Appeals [2015] SGCA 57 afford a logical and well-summarised series of choices available to a court faced with such an issue. The C”

“24. MLJ 857 Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 57, [2016] 1”

“24. MLJ 857 Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 57, [2016] 1”

“n 11[1] of the Singapore’s IAA. [51] To my mind, nothing really turns on this omission as the Singapore Court of Appeal in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57; [2016] 1 SLR 373 [“Tomolugen Holdings”] has held at [74] that, “In our judgment, an arbitration agreement”

“n the written submissions. No reference was made to leading cases such as the decision by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd And Another v. Silica Investors Ltd and Other Appeals [2015] SGCA 57 and the Court of Appeal in Malaysia in Protasco Bhd v. Tey Por Yee & Another Appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299, whi”

“truction Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2021] MLJU 761 5. Protasco Bhd v. Tey Por Yee & Another Appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299 6. Tomolugen Holdings Ltd A and Another v. Silica Investors L td and Others Appeals [2015] SGCA 57 7. Vertex Superieur Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Shell Malaysia Trading Sdn Bhd [2021] MLJU 1531 **Note : Serial num”

“a nature which makes it contrary to public policy to be adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal. In this regard, the Singapore’s Court of Appeal judgment in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 57 (“Tomolugen Holdings”) was cited **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this doc”

“a eFILING portal 27 [46] The Federal Court referred to the jurisprudence by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd And Another v. Silica Investors Ltd And Other Appeals [2015] SGCA 57, where the Singapore Court of Appeal, in dealing with section 11 of the Singapore International Arbitration”

“ms would run contrary to the objectives of the insolvency regime as rights of third parties, i.e., creditors, would be affected (paragraph 45). [80] Tomolugen Holdings and another v Silica Investors [2015] SGCA 57 similarly stated at page 22 of 46: "[84] In our judgment, a claim for relief under s 216 of the Companies”

“s to arbitration it is not possible to read into the language of arbitration clause the limitation contended for. [61] In Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and Another v. Silica Investors Ltd And Other Appeals [2015] SGCA 57, the Singapore Court of Appeal, in dealing with s. 11 of the Singapore International Arbitration Act, held”

“e Ltd v. Antara Steel Mills Sdn. Bhd. [2024] 6 MLJ 662 3. Protasco Bhd v. Tey Por Yee & Another Appeal [2018] 5 CLJ 299 4. Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v. Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57 [2016] 1 SLR 373 5. Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram v. Nautical Supreme Sdn. Bhd. & Ors [2019] 5 MLJ 1 6. Danone”

“at of avoiding re-litigation of the same issues and facts in different fora. [46] In the Singapore Court of Appeal case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57 (‘Tomolugen’), numerous authorities in the Commonwealth were considered and analysed comprehensively. Ther”

“ings unless it is satisfied that the arbitration clause is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. (See Tomulugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57) [50] According to the Jarvis test, inordinate delay is a material factor and can be fatal to an applicat”

“proceedings pending arbitration in the interest of the justice of the case. [32] In the Singapore Court of Appeal case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57, in allowing the appeals and granting a stay of the court proceedings against inter alia non-parties, the S”

“2020] MLJU 1586 which adopted the Hong Kong case of Private Company “Triple V Inc” v. Star (Universal) Co Ltd [1995] 3 HKC 129 and the Singapore case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v. Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 57 (CA). Consequently, and since there is plainly the existence of an arbitration agreement, the stay should”

“(Respondent) (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16 Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v. Juang Setia Sdn Bhd & Another Appeal [2020] 4 CLJ 301 Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2015] SGCA 57. UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892 ZAQ Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor v Putrajaya Hol”

“In Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 57 (“Tomolugen”) at [63], the Court of Appeal held that a court hearing a stay application under s 6 of the IAA should grant a stay in favour of arbitration if the applicant is able to establish a prima”

“(b) in Singapore’s Court of Appeal case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd & Anor v Silica Investors Ltd and Other Appeals [2015] SGCA 57, at [139], [140] and [186]-[188], Sundaresh Menon CJ has held as follows - 18 “The options available to the court [139] Broadly speaking, there are three options available to a Singapore cour”

“(b) in Singapore’s Court of Appeal case of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd & Anor v Silica Investors Ltd and Other Appeals [2015] SGCA 57, at [139], [140] and [186]-[188], Sundaresh Menon CJ has held as follows - “The options available to the court [139] Broadly speaking, there are three options available to a Singapore court w”