Member Info for MassiveRay

The fact that:

both stay applications were dismissed,

the dismissal was "in its entirety",

costs of S$18,000 were awarded to Semnet,

could indicate that the registrar found Semnet's position sufficiently persuasive to justify not only refusing the stay but also awarding costs against the applicants.

From a litigation perspective, if Semnet's argument was essentially:

"This is not a dispute about rights and obligations under the SPA. This is a separate wrong."

and the court accepted that, then the defendants may face an uphill battle on appeal because appellate courts are generally reviewing whether the registrar applied the correct legal test, not rehearing the entire dispute from scratch.

Now using some commonsense the platiff were able to demonstrate handedly, the broader claim sits clearly outside of the SPA.. not even a partial stay was given. Clear as day IMHO

So how do you think the registrar arrived at the conclusion that full stay is rejected? What did she see ?

SPA clauses ***

And how did the judge come to this conclusion because you said your words " she's only looking at the arbitration classes and not evidence"

I told you they dont need to RNS if the venue hasn't changed however I didnt factor in the cost awarded to semnet.

The fact is and you made it very clear Singapore is Arbitration friendly - you also made it very clear the SPA clauses were water tight and Arbitration is impossible to reject.

I asked you several times do you know what evidence the judge has infront of her - so how can you be so certain of a stay?

You said it was watertight and impossible to reject arbitration - what happened then?

Why do you think they lost the stay application in it's entirety chbs? I mean what happened to their top teir lawyers and the "broard SPA clause" ? You'd imagine it was presented right?

That isn't what you said yesterday you made it clear it would be more expensive for semnet and they "dodged a bullet"

Exactly David , if my posting is higher it's because I've been responding to his inaccuracies just like last night where he was trying to spin the notion that losing the stay application woukd be more expensive for semnet than the defendant. And now he knows that is incorrect.

You told us there is a placing coming 4 weeks ago and the shareprice would be 0.1p - but the sp is 350% higher than what you proposed kat. I think you should apologise to the newbies who listened to you.

But kat in the last 3 years you know very well im completely aware of your full trading strategy and what you do on every single occasion and that is to work your own book and by your own admission to trade on smallish positions and take very small amounts of profit and reset.

Very typically speaking kat is a 3% -10% trader then starts her negative spin again.

She also likes to create new threads to keep her agenda at the top of the list - again by her own admission. And kat has never held long term.

On that note chbs... i guess you having a higher IQ than everyone else I bid you good night.

For the benefit of chabols lack of understanding

To use a hypothetical example, imagine there are three separate stay applications brought by three different defendants.

All three applications are heard together because they arise from the same underlying dispute and involve overlapping legal arguments.

The court then grants all three stay applications.

In that situation, the successful defendants would normally be entitled to seek costs from the plaintiff. However, the court would not necessarily award costs three times over simply because there were three applications.

A common outcome would be a single global costs order, for example:

Stay Application 1 granted.

Stay Application 2 granted.

Stay Application 3 granted.

Costs fixed at S$18,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The S$18,000 would represent the court's assessment of the hearing as a whole, not a separate S$18,000 award for each application.

Reminds me of the time you said you couldn't find the completion statement from your alledged property sale. You said it would take to long to find it. Its easy do an email search for completion statement and it pops right up. Lol

Infact to be honest the more I exchange with you the more you reveal how little you know about the real world especially commercial issues.

It was hypothetical chbs to try and simplify it for you.

So once again chabol has it wrong assuming semnet would be paying the defendants tier one fees had they lost.

You're in way over your head buddy.

You're conflating two different things: actual legal costs and court-awarded costs.

Nobody is suggesting that Semnet's lawyers only charged S$18,000.

The RNS states that Semnet was awarded a costs order of S$18,000. That is what the court ordered the other side to pay. It is not necessarily what Semnet spent.

In commercial litigation, especially where multiple parties are involved and large firms are instructed, it is entirely possible for actual legal fees to be substantially higher than the amount recoverable under a costs order.

The point is that none of us know the actual legal bill.

We know the costs award.

We do not know:

what Semnet paid its lawyers,

what fee arrangements exist,

how much work was undertaken,

or what proportion of those costs will ultimately be recoverable.

So saying "the legal costs were probably higher than S$18,000" is a reasonable opinion.

Saying "the legal costs definitely were £X or S$Y" is speculation unless you have access to the invoices.

This is the same distinction that keeps arising throughout these discussions:

Youre struggling bud.. desperately asking questions lol