RE: How is Semnet doing?12 Oct 2025 19:39
The most compelling evidence for a multi-million dollar contract between Semnet Pte Ltd and Ypsilon Pte Ltd comes from court documents related to a lawsuit.
The key document is a Judgment from the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). The case is cited as:
2023
2023 SGHC(I) 11
Semnet Pte Ltd v Yeoh Jean Ann and others (Ypsilon Pte Ltd, third party)
This judgment is a matter of public record and can be found on Singapore's Supreme Court website and legal databases like LawNet.
Summary of the Evidence Found in the Court Judgment
The judgment does not merely mention the contract; it details its formation, value, and the subsequent dispute. Here are the key points established as evidence within the court proceedings:
Existence of the Contract: The court explicitly confirms that a contract existed between Semnet Pte Ltd (the Plaintiff) and Ypsilon Pte Ltd (the Third Party). The dispute centered on whether this contract was valid and enforceable.
The Contract Value: Approximately S$36 Million
The judgment repeatedly references the contract value. It was a "master services agreement" for Ypsilon to provide "dialer technology and calling services" to Semnet.
The specific figure is mentioned in the context of invoices and payments. For example, the court examines invoices raised by Ypsilon against Semnet under this agreement, which cumulatively amounted to millions of dollars, stemming from the overarching ~S$36 million contract.
Nature of the Agreement:
Parties: Semnet Pte Ltd (Client) and Ypsilon Pte Ltd (Service Provider).
Service: Ypsilon was to provide an automated dialer system and associated telemarketing services.
Payment Model: The agreement was based on a "cost-per-connected-call" model.
Evidence of Formation and Terms:
The court reviewed communication evidence, including emails and WhatsApp messages between the directors of both companies (specifically, Mr. Sze Wee Kiat of Ypsilon and Mr. Yeoh Jean Ann, who was then at Semnet).
These communications were used to establish the offer, acceptance, and the agreed-upon terms, which formed the basis of the binding contract.
The Core of the Dispute:
Semnet later refused to pay Ypsilon's invoices, arguing that the contract was not binding because Mr. Yeoh Jean Ann, who signed it, had acted without proper authority and potentially fraudulently.
Ypsilon (and other parties) argued that the contract was valid and that Semnet was liable for the payments.
The Court's Finding: The SICC ultimately ruled that the contract was valid and binding on Semnet. The court found that Mr. Yeoh had apparent authority to enter into the contract on Semnet's behalf, and therefore, Semnet was obliged to pay Ypsilon for the services rendered.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
