Judgment Header
The "URSUS" and other matters [2015] SGHCR 7
Court DecisionSGHCR
[2015] SGHCR 7
[2015] SGHCR 7
High Court of Singapore6 Apr 2015Adm No 240 of 2014 (Summons No 75 of 2015), Adm No 241 of 2014 (Summons No 79 of 2015), Adm No 242 of 2014 (Summons No 77 of 2015), Adm No 243 of 2014 (Summons No 78 of 2015), Adm No 244 of 2014 (Summons No 80 of 2015), Adm No 245 of 2014 (Summons No 83 of 2015)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 1 later decision. 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
1Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ailed to set aside the Extension Orders, the Writs were valid when they were deemed to have been duly served on the Defendant on 15 May 2018 pursuant to O 10 r 1(3) of the Rules (see also The “Ursus” [2015] SGHCR 7 at [14]).”
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: Adm No 240 of 2014 (Summons No 75 of 2015), Adm No 241 of 2014 (Summons No 79 of 2015), Adm No 242 of 2014 (Summons No 77 of 2015), Adm No 243 of 2014 (Summons No 78 of 2015), Adm No 244 of 2014 (Summons No 80 of 2015), Adm No 245 of 2014 (Summons No 83 of 2015)
Case Metadata
Court: High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-04-06
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.