H M Luqman Al Hakim Ang & Anor v Wonderz Pty Ltd & 2 Ors
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Don Ho |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure—Costs, Civil Procedure—Striking out |
| Counsel | Achievers LLC, Imperial Law LLC, Mohamed Ibrahim, Nicholas Aw |
Source: [2026] SGDC 295, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (5)
Case Significance
H M Luqman Al Hakim Ang and another v Wonderz Pty Ltd and others [2026] SGDC 295 was decided by Deputy Registrar Don Ho in the District Court on 9 September 2026, in District Court Originating Claim No 706 of 2024 (Summons No 987 of 2026). The claimants, investors in a Sheep Meat Trading Program, sued for $141,229.28 and $94,152.85 and applied under O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court 2021 to strike out the defence of the second and third defendants for non-payment of costs orders. The issue was whether the Court of Appeal's "extremely limited" standard in Chloe V governs striking out a defence at an interlocutory stage. The court held it does not, and debarred the defendants from further interlocutory applications until the $9,000 in costs was paid.
[2026] SGDC 295 explained
H M Luqman Al Hakim Ang & Anor v Wonderz Pty Ltd & 2 Ors ([2026] SGDC 295) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 9 September 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure—Costs and Civil Procedure—Striking out. 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] SGDC 295 about?
H M Luqman Al Hakim Ang & Anor v Wonderz Pty Ltd & 2 Ors ([2026] SGDC 295) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure—Costs” and “Civil Procedure—Striking out”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGDC 295 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 39, [2025] SGCA 46, and [2024] SGHC(A) 33, and 1 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The District Court heard an application by two claimants to strike out the defence of Halalxpert Pte Ltd and ARK Group of Companies Pte Ltd for failing to pay two outstanding costs orders totalling $9,000. Deputy Registrar Don Ho held that the defendants had refused or neglected to pay, but that striking out a defence should be a last resort. The court allowed the application in part, debarring the defendants from filing further interlocutory applications until the costs were paid, and fixed costs at $2,000 (all-in) in the claimants' favour.
What did [2026] SGDC 295 decide on striking out a defence for unpaid costs?
Deputy Registrar Don Ho held that striking out a defence under O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court 2021 should be an order of last resort, and that a flexible approach based on proportionality applies at the second stage.
What order was made in H M Luqman Al Hakim Ang v Wonderz Pty Ltd ([2026] SGDC 295)?
The court allowed the application in part and debarred the defendants from filing further interlocutory applications, with pending ones stayed, until both outstanding costs orders were satisfied. Costs of $2,000 (all-in) were fixed in the claimants' favour.
Cases Cited (16)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 295)