Lau Lee Sheng and others v Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others and another appeal

[2026] SGCA 28 Court of Appeal 22 June 2026 CA/CA 25/2025 · CA/CA 39/2025 88 min read
30 cases cited (20 SG, 10 foreign)

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

we accordingly dismiss the appeal on this issue.

Source: [2026] SGCA 28, Court of Appeal, decided 22 June 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Featured in the weekly digest — week of 22–28 June 2026 →

Key facts

Court Court of Appeal
Decided
Judges Judith Prakash, Kannan Ramesh, Steven Chong
Charges / claim Insolvency Law
Outcome Appeal dismissed
Counsel Setia Law LLC, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, WongPartnership LLP, Chan Ming Onn David, Danny Ong Tun Wei, Fong Zhiwei Daryl, Koh Swee Yen, Lai Wei Kang Louis, Lin Ruizi, Liu Zhao Xiang, Tan Wei Sze, Teo Jen Min, Toh Yong Xiang, Victoria Liu Xin Er, Yoong Joon Wei Aaron (Yang Junwei)

Source: [2026] SGCA 28, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (15)

Parties (14)

Case Significance

[2026] SGCA 28, decided 22 June 2026, is a Court of Appeal ruling on Civil Appeals No 25 and 39 of 2025 arising from the collapse of the Envy group of companies, described in the judgment as having operated a Ponzi scheme. Kannan Ramesh JAD, delivering the judgment of a coram that also included Steven Chong JCA and Judith Prakash SJ, ruled on claims of transactions defrauding creditors brought by the Envy entities in liquidation (Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd, Envy Management Holdings Pte Ltd, and Envy Global Trading Pte Ltd) against appellants including Lau Lee Sheng, Teo Wei Wen Benjamin, Koh Hong Jie, and Shen Xuhuai. The judgment draws on 30 cited authorities (20 Singapore, 10 foreign) and references 7 statutes overall, including the Bankruptcy Act and the English Insolvency Act.

[2026] SGCA 28 explained

Lau Lee Sheng and others v Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others and another appeal ([2026] SGCA 28) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 22 June 2026. It is categorised under Insolvency Law. 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 [2026] SGCA 28 about?

Lau Lee Sheng and others v Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others and another appeal ([2026] SGCA 28) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Insolvency Law — Avoidance of transactions — Transactions defrauding creditors”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 28 consider?

The judgment refers to Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20), Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61), English Insolvency Act, and Insolvency Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 28 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 144 and [2024] SGHC 46. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

What is [2026] SGCA 28 about in the Envy group insolvency litigation?

[2026] SGCA 28 (22 June 2026) is a Court of Appeal decision on Civil Appeals No 25 and 39 of 2025 concerning transactions defrauding creditors arising from the collapse of the Envy group of companies, which the judgment describes as having run a Ponzi scheme.

Statutes Cited

English Insolvency Act Cases on this Act →
s 339 s 423 s 425
s 339
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act Cases on this Act →
Law of Property Act Cases on this Act →
s 172 s 172(3)
Restructuring and Dissolution Act Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (30)

SLR (18)
[1996] 1 SLR(R) 884 [2003] 4 SLR(R) 667 [2004] 4 SLR(R) 365 [2005] 4 SLR(R) 561 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 778 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 77 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 [2015] 5 SLR 1422 [2018] 1 SLR 170 [2022] 2 SLR 158 [2022] 3 SLR 353 [2023] 5 SLR 717 [2024] 1 SLR 266 [2024] 2 SLR 790 [2024] 3 SLR 1457 [2025] 1 SLR 141 [2025] 1 SLR 492 [2025] 1 SLR 649
UK (7)
[1973] 2 All ER 359 [1977] 1 WLR 1041 [2008] 2 All ER 901 [2011] EWHC 2047 [2020] AC 1111 [2020] EWHC 1200 [2022] 1 WLR 61
AU (3)
[2001] VSC 466 [2019] FCAFC 90 [2021] FCAFC 228

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 28)