Judgment Header
Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5
Loading…
[2000] SGHC 5
General Division of the High Court of Singapore10 Jan 2000Adm in Per 790/1998
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 6 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ortunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 (“OCM Opportunities Fund”) and Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 (“Precious Wishes”) exemplify that approach, as the defendants in those cases were sentenced to six months”
“ctical effect. In coming to the decision, the High Court examined precedents where a custodial sentence was found appropriate, including Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 (a three-month custodial sentence was imposed for deliberate disregard of a Mareva injunction and where th”
“cognisance of their deliberate disobedience of the orders which continued even after a permanent injunction was obtained. Similarly, in Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Mettaloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5, Judith Prakash J, as she then was, emphasised the contemnor’s deliberate disregard for a Mareva injunction”
“ted the cases referred to at [62] [66] and [67] above as well as Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227, Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5, Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and another v v Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh and others [2018] 3 SLR”
“(b) Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 (“Precious Wishes”), in which three months’ imprisonment was imposed for the withdrawal of $150,000 from the company’s account in breach of a Mareva injunction without restitution: Precious Wishes at”
“(b) The facts and circumstances of the present case were more egregious than those in Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 but were slightly less aggravating than those in OCM Opportunities Fund II LP v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kong) [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 and Maruti Shipping Pte”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5
Case Metadata
Case No: Adm in Per 790/1998
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2000-01-10
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.