PICOTIN PTE. LTD.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Aedit Abdullah |
| Charges / claim | Insolvency Law |
| Counsel | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Harry Elias Partnership LLP, Chia Tze Yung Justin, Ho Jiaxin, Kok Yee Keong, Lim Hui Li Debby, Pang Haoyu, Samuel, Toh Ming Wai |
Source: [2024] SGHC 156, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Case Significance
Re Picotin Pte Ltd and other matters [2024] SGHC 156 was a decision of the General Division of the High Court delivered by Aedit Abdullah J on 18 June 2024, comprising Originating Applications Nos 372 to 376 of 2024 brought under Part 5 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. The applicant holding company, Picotin Pte Ltd, sought and obtained a moratorium under s 64 of the IRDA, while related-company moratoria under s 65 of the IRDA were sought to protect its subsidiaries, namely Picotin ASQ Pte Ltd, Picotin Bay Pte Ltd, Picotin Brewhaus Pte Ltd and The Hogs Bars Pte Ltd.
According to the judgment, the related-company moratoria were resisted by the respective landlords of the subsidiaries, who sought carve-outs allowing re-entry into their properties. The applicants were represented by counsel from Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, including Lim Hui Li Debby and Pang Haoyu, Samuel, while the resisting non-parties were represented by counsel from Harry Elias Partnership LLP, including Chia Tze Yung Justin.
Summary
The applicant holding company of a group involved in the restaurant and pub business obtained a moratorium under section 64 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, and moratoria protecting its subsidiaries were sought under section 65; the landlords of two subsidiary outlets at Asia Square and Rochester Park resisted these and sought carve-outs allowing re-entry into their properties. The General Division of the High Court issued brief remarks to provide guidance on its approach to such carve-out applications and to section 65 applications generally. The court extended the moratoria for the companies for three months, but provided that in the two applications concerning the landlords' premises the respective landlord could exercise re-entry or forfeiture if rent remained unpaid beyond one calendar month, with liberty to apply.
What was Re Picotin Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 156 about?
It was a 2024 High Court decision before Aedit Abdullah J in which the holding company Picotin Pte Ltd obtained a moratorium under s 64 of the IRDA, and related-company moratoria under s 65 were sought to protect its subsidiaries, resisted by the subsidiaries' landlords.
Which companies were involved in Re Picotin Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 156?
The applicant holding company was Picotin Pte Ltd, and the related-company moratoria under s 65 of the IRDA were sought for its subsidiaries Picotin ASQ Pte Ltd, Picotin Bay Pte Ltd, Picotin Brewhaus Pte Ltd and The Hogs Bars Pte Ltd, across Originating Applications Nos 372 to 376 of 2024.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 156)