Zhu Su v THREE ARROWS CAPITAL LTD & 2 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGCA 14 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGCA 14 Court of Appeal 10 May 2024 CA/OA 37/2023 · CA/OA 38/2023 18 min read

8 cases cited (6 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

Application dismissed

we dismissed the Applications and ordered costs of $4,000 inclusive of disbursements against Mr Zhu and Mr Davies respectively in favour of the Respondents.

Source: [2024] SGCA 14, Court of Appeal, decided 10 May 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	10 May 2024
Judges	Kannan Ramesh, Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Outcome	Application dismissed
Sentence / award	$4,000
Counsel	Advocatus Law LLP, WongPartnership LLP, Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Harjean Kaur, Kwong Kai Sheng, Leo Zhen Wei Lionel, Lim Yi Zheng, Liu Zhao Xiang, Manoj Pillay Sandrasegara, Muhammed Ismail Bin k.o. Noordin, Saadhvika Jayanth, T Abirami, Yeo Yi Ling Eileen

Source: [2024] SGCA 14, Court of Appeal, decided 10 May 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Permission

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (2)

Kannan Ramesh Delivered Sundaresh Menon Coram

Counsel (13)

Advocatus Law LLP Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Christopher Anand s/o Daniel Counsel Applicant Harjean Kaur Counsel Applicant Kwong Kai Sheng Counsel Respondent Leo Zhen Wei Lionel Counsel Respondent Lim Yi Zheng Counsel Applicant Liu Zhao Xiang Counsel Respondent Manoj Pillay Sandrasegara Counsel Respondent Muhammed Ismail Bin k.o. Noordin Counsel Respondent Saadhvika Jayanth Counsel Applicant T Abirami Counsel Respondent Yeo Yi Ling Eileen Counsel Applicant

Parties (5)

Three Arrows Capital Ltd Respondent Christopher Farmer (solely in his capacity as a duly appointed joint liquidator of Three Arrows Capital Ltd) Respondent Kyle Livingston Davies Applicant Russell Crumpler (solely in his capacity as a duly appointed joint liquidator of Three Arrows Capital Ltd) Respondent Zhu Su Applicant

Case Significance

Zhu Su v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others and another matter [2024] SGCA 14 was decided by the Singapore Court of Appeal on 10 May 2024, with grounds of decision delivered by Kannan Ramesh JAD on behalf of a coram of Sundaresh Menon CJ and Kannan Ramesh JAD, following a hearing on 22 January 2024. The matter comprised Originating Applications Nos 37 and 38 of 2023, brought respectively by Zhu Su and Kyle Livingston Davies, which were applications for permission to appeal a decision by a Judge of the General Division of the High Court refusing to set aside certain orders made against the applicants, including an order under s 244 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed). The central question was whether an order under s 244 of the IRDA, and a decision refusing to set aside that order, were interlocutory orders for the purpose of para 3(l) of the Fifth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed). The respondents were Three Arrows Capital Ltd and its joint liquidators, Christopher Farmer and Russell Crumpler.

[2024] SGCA 14 explained

Zhu Su v THREE ARROWS CAPITAL LTD & 2 Ors ([2024] SGCA 14) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 10 May 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGCA 14 about?

Zhu Su v THREE ARROWS CAPITAL LTD & 2 Ors ([2024] SGCA 14) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Permission”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGCA 14 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What was Zhu Su v Three Arrows Capital Ltd [2024] SGCA 14 about?

Decided by the Court of Appeal on 10 May 2024, [2024] SGCA 14 concerned applications by Zhu Su and Kyle Livingston Davies for permission to appeal a decision refusing to set aside orders against them, including an order under s 244 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.

What was the central question in Zhu Su v Three Arrows Capital Ltd [2024] SGCA 14?

The central question was whether an order under s 244 of the IRDA, and a decision refusing to set it aside, were interlocutory orders for the purpose of para 3(l) of the Fifth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed).