Carpe Diem Holdings Pte Ltd

Carpe Diem Holdings Pte Ltd is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 1 case in Singapore's courts. Represented by 2 counsels. Through 1 law firm. They have been involved in 1 complex case, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Carpe Diem Holdings Pte Ltd has been represented by 1 law firm and 2 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP	1 case	Loh Kia Meng Francis Wu Wenbang

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Carpe Diem Holdings Pte Ltd's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.0
Complex Cases: 1 (100.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	15.0 parties avg	5.0	100.0%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Carpe Diem Holdings Pte Ltd's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(100.0%)	100.0%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	10,000.00	10,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2018-sghc-37 20 Feb 2018	20 Feb 2018	Plaintiff	LostOriginating Summons dismissed with costs to the fourth defendant fixed at $10,000 and reasonable disbursements. I made no order as to costs as regard the first defendant and the second defendant. Specifically, leave was not granted to proceed against either the first defendant or the second defendant. It follows that the questions sought to be determined under s 310 of the Act need not be conclusively answered. That said, I have, in the course of my grounds, taken the view that the assignment the Lease was not wrongful. Accordingly, those questions might very well have been answered in substance. Consequently, prayers 3 and 4, which sought a reversal of the transfer of the Lease or damages for loss of profit in lieu, were also not granted given that the assignment of the Lease was not wrongful in the first place. The proper recourse for the plaintiff lay in lodging a proof of debt for contractual damages in the liquidation of the first defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.