Member Info for Chaebol

No, we cannot agree on that.

For the last time......... Perry Mason is not in the building yet, this is procedural jurisdiction it has nothing to do with merits.

The Registrar does read the materials filed by both parties, but not to decide the merits of the case (i.e. whether Semnet’s claims are true or whether they can prove US$4.2 million in losses).She reads the evidence only to answer these jurisdictional questions

What does the SPA arbitration clause actually say?

Do Semnet’s claims (or parts of them) fall inside or outside that clause?

Is it appropriate to grant a full stay, partial stay, or no stay?

This is not a decision on the merits. Singapore law is very clear on this point — a stay application is not the place for a mini-trial on who is right or wrong.The Registrar is not deciding

Did Choo and Zheng actually breach their duties?

Are the fiduciary claims valid?

How strong is Semnet’s evidence?

She is deciding where those questions should be answered — in arbitration or in court.So no, the evidence is not there for her to weigh the merits of the case. It is there to help her decide the jurisdictional issue.This is standard law in Singapore.

Can you not understand nuance BFD

I stated that if the SPA was worded strong enough like that Arbitration clause example then that type of wording will send them back to arb.

A&G must be very confident that type of wording is in the SPA, are you going to tell me that A&G have not seen the SPA now and a tier 1 firm is telling chong to file stay they have no understanding of.

MAssi, you’re still missing the key distinction. Yes, the Assistant Registrar does receive affidavits, the SPA, the arbitration clause, pleadings, and written submissions from both sides. That part is correct.

However, this is not the same as “seeing evidence from both sides” on the actual merits of the US$4.2 million claim.

What the court looks at in a stay hearing: The text of the SPA and the exact wording of the arbitration clause.

The nature of Semnet’s claims (are they related to the SPA or not?).

Procedural history (Notice of Arbitration, mediation, etc.).

Legal arguments on jurisdiction and scope.

What the court does NOT look at

Whether Choo/Zheng actually breached their duties.

Whether the fiduciary duty or breach of confidence claims are true.

The strength of Semnet’s evidence on the US$4.2 million losses.

Any “smoking gun” documents proving wrongdoing.

This is not a trial on the merits. It is a jurisdictional hearing. The Assistant Registrar’s main job is to answer one core question:“Do these claims (or parts of them) fall inside the SPA arbitration clause?”

If the answer is yes for claims against Choo and Zheng, they go back to arbitration, even if Semnet has very strong evidence on the merits.

That is standard Singapore law under the International Arbitration Act. The court deliberately avoids mini-trials at the stay stage.So no, this is exactly what I alluded to earlier.

The hearing is about where the fight happens, not who wins the fight.

Just go ahead and lie bfd I said it depends how strong that wording is on the SPA and if it worded like that then its going back to arb.. A&G beleive that wording is strong in the SPA, otherwise they wouldnt have advised Chong to file stay aligned wiht zheng zhu.

If its bad news we know GST delay RNS's they can realistically hold on to bad news until the 15th June ish

Your AI work needs help but it clarifies the SPA

whether the claims fall within the arbitration clause;

whether the non-signatory former manager changes the analysis;

whether the fiduciary-duty claims are independent of the SPA;

whether a full stay, partial stay, or no stay is appropriate.

They have a filing for that enki.

Daphne ! The ruling is not secret. The defendants are generally free to tell their friends and contacts what the outcome is. The only party likely to make it truly public is GST (via RNS), if the result is significant enough.

The defendants cannot show their friends copies of the specific Affidavits or Written Submissions filed for the stay hearing to "prove" their point, as those documents can legally only be used for the proper conduct of that specific lawsuit.

Unless there was confidentiality clauses (unlikely in a simple stay summons like this ) the defendants are legally free to share the final result of the stay application with their social and professional circles. However, they must strictly avoid sharing court filings, exhibits, or detailing the private arguments made during the chambers hearing.

I would imagine all of Zheng Zhu and Chong family and maybe some friends know the outcome especailly if its been stayed.

Cheers Chef,

Hope you're well.

I tried for months when the company was in a much better shape, we are near the end of the doom loop of GST. June is death here imo.

What are you on about now ? Massi said something about Gaslighting earlier I think this is it Ray x;) Whether you like it or not BFD Im a shareholder, scraps of shares with a few brokers, also hedges but all this nuance lost on your Chaebol deranged brain.

The final stage ? what are you on ?

Anyway GST publicly filed a high court writ to hopefully get Zheng Zhu paNICKING to the table and settle before it escalated any further , that public shaming has not paid off, June will be month 5 of expensive litigation, fighting stays and procedure, and god knows what else is coming but hunker down for a long battle here.

Nope both sides can appeal to the judge from Janice judgement , and GST can hide behind that without RNS'ing.

You tried to tel me she was a Judge I told you she wasnt and yet you still persist, dont worry when it goes to full court (if thats the case ) a proper judge then hears the case ok.

This place is like Stranger things the upside down world.

Never seen this kind of delusion in a BOD that is totally out of its depth now.

And im guessing the wording is strong in the SPA between the former sellers and GST, otherwise A&G would not be advising Chong on a stay app aligned with Zheng and Zhu.

Now if A&G saw this wording in the SPA its going back to arb.

“Any dispute, controversy, difference or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, or any matter arising from or related to this Agreement, including any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) in accordance with the SIAC Rules for the time being in force. The seat of arbitration shall be Singapore. The Tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator. The language of the arbitration shall be English.”

Yes you finally get it billy 'The outcome has a bias against the Defendants at present due to the SPA.'

And how strongly worded that SPA is and how wide of a scope it has, if the Law of confidence has any whiff of one of the SPA clauses (or even Janices interpretations) it goes back to arb doesnt it Billy.

Good god Enki you trash me I prove you wrong, she isnt a judge but now she has judge powers! lol mental gymnasia

My whole point was because she isnt a judge, if Zheng Zhu or Semnet lose the stay they can file an appeal to have the stay summons with a proper judge.

You then deranged yourself to tell me that im wrong when im right, and that AI had a made a mug of me, when youre only mugging yourself off again! with a stupid rage bait that was fundamentally incorrect.

Thanks for playing Enk's get out in that Sun, your bones will love you x

What evidence is that?

She is mainly looking at jurisdictional evidence, such as

The actual wording of the SPA and the arbitration clause.

Whether the claims are related to the SPA or not.

Procedural history (arbitration notice, mediation, etc.).

This is very different from looking at the full merits evidence (proof of breaches, financial losses, emails, documents proving wrongdoing, etc.).That full evidence only comes later — either in arbitration (for Choo & Zheng) or at trial in court (for Chong).

So no, I didn’t say she looks at zero evidence. I said she does not look at the main evidence of the actual case or merits at the stay stage. That is still correct.

Ray it really is simple

She looks at two main things

Is there a proper arbitration clause in the SPA?

Do Semnet’s claims fall inside that clause, or outside it?

If the claim is inside the SPA clause → It goes back to arbitration (this is the normal rule in Singapore).

If the claim is outside the SPA clause (especially against Chong) → It can stay in the High Court.

Now im imagining the wording in the SPA clause is strong and has wide scope because A&G have filed a stay.

Changed subject again lol

Enki thinks janice is a judge and then tells me i have no clue see you in week Enki thanks for playing. All you need to do is read the summons filing says ot on that but nope Chaebol AI lunatic getting confused. LOL Enki read !

Ray have you heard of shooting fish in a barrel.......

No massi becaus ive just embarrassed you on the bet, you changed the goalposts.

Any guy with a modicum of IQ can realise im saying a full dismissal is not the win you think it is and this isnt why GST filed writ, they filed for quick settlement, now its slowly becoming another mess of their own making,

Have you realised Janice is not a judge yet Enki, man with scoobys clearly lol

Judicial Authority: Assistant Registrars possess full judicial powers to hear and decide interlocutory matters.

Equivalent Weight: Her decision on the stay summons binds the parties just like a High Court Judge's order.

Appellate Route: Any party dissatisfied with her ruling has a right to appeal to a High Court Judge in Chambers within 14 days.T

This procedural structure keeps the legal system efficient by letting Registrars handle crucial pre-trial applications.

Janice is not a judge mate

Janice (Wong Shi Hui Janice) is not a Judge. She is an Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court.What this means for the stay summons hearing:Assistant Registrars in Singapore’s Supreme Court have judicial powers to hear and decide interlocutory applications (such as stay summonses).

They regularly hear and decide stay applications, case management conferences, discovery applications, etc.

Their decisions carry the same weight as a High Court Judge’s decision for that specific matter (unless appealed or reviewed by a Judge).

So in this case:Assistant Registrar Wong Shi Hui Janice was the judicial officer who presided over the stay summons hearings (14 May in chambers and 26 May virtual).

She has the authority to grant or refuse the stay.

Summary:

She is not a full Judge, but she is the one who handled and will decide (or has decided) the stay applications. This is completely normal in the Singapore High Court for this type of procedural matter.

Whoever loses the stays can appeal within 14 days to have oit heard in front of judge.