[2014] SGHC 210

“islead the court), while intrinsic fraud concerns fraud which goes to the merits of the judgment: Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 210 at [101]–[102]. In that case, it was alleged that a judgment creditor had failed to give full and frank”

“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”