[2014] SGHC 210

“the advantages and disadvantages to each of the parties, among other factors. Mr Khoo also cited Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 210 for the proposition that the mere existence of simultaneous proceedings did not necessarily mean that a s”

“t judgments that are final and conclusive can be enforced in Singapore, as the High Court held in Eleven Gessellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermaktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 210 at [79] (see also Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Trans”

“sel or witness, or collusion with a representative party to the prejudice of beneficial interest: Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 210 (“Boxsentry”) at [103]). This type of fraud may be simply pleaded without any special restrictions. The”

“d. The Appellant analogises the Summary Judgment Motion to a default judgment citing, inter alia, Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 210 (“Boxsentry”) in support. In Boxsentry, the court found that the failure to disclose background facts in”

“(b) In Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 210 (“Eleven”), the plaintiff sought to enforce a Berlin default judgment. The court (at [92]) cited Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore vol 6(2) (Butterworths Asia, 2013 Reissue) (“Halsbury”), which states”