RE: Singapore Court Access1 Jun 2026 19:38
This is another example of someone presenting assumptions as established facts.
The post repeatedly uses phrases such as "factually exact", "automatic next step" and "exists precisely to", yet no court directions from the 4 June Case Conference have actually been published.
A Case Conference is a case-management hearing. By definition, it exists so the court can determine the next procedural steps. Until the hearing takes place, nobody outside the court and the parties can know precisely what directions will be given.
The author also creates a false choice.
Nobody suggested that the Assistant Registrar would order the parties to settle. Courts manage cases; parties decide whether to settle.
Settlement discussions can occur before, during or after procedural hearings. The existence of a Case Conference does not somehow eliminate the possibility of commercial negotiations between the parties.
What stands out is the familiar pattern:
Take a reasonable possibility.
Present it as a certainty.
Declare alternative views "factually incorrect."
Repeat often enough that opinion starts masquerading as fact.
The reality is much simpler.
The stay applications have been dismissed.
There is a Case Conference on 4 June.
The court will provide directions on how the litigation proceeds.
Anything beyond that is speculation until the court actually issues those directions.
The most curious aspect is that for someone who constantly lectures others about facts, evidence and procedure, there is an extraordinary amount of certainty about events that have not yet happened.
A prediction is still a prediction, no matter how confidently it is written.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
