Capajet Pte. Ltd. v EV Technology Pte. Ltd. & 3 Ors
Outcome
Application dismissedwe dismiss the applications for permission to appeal against the Striking Out Decisions.
Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 16, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 14 May 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Appellate Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Debbie Ong Siew Ling, See Kee Oon |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC, Sreenivasan Chambers LLC, Sterling Law Corporation, Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin, Narayanan Sreenivasan, Ng Clare Sophia, Sankar S/O Kailasa Thevar Saminathan, Sathya Justin Narayanan, Tessa Low Wen Xin |
Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 16, High Court (Appellate Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (2)
Counsel (9)
Case Significance
Capajet Pte Ltd v EV Technology Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHC(A) 16, decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court on 14 May 2026 with Justice Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD delivering the judgment (sitting with See Kee Oon JAD), addressed permission-to-appeal applications arising from decisions on summary judgment and striking out in HC/OC 834/2024. The underlying action was Capajet Pte Ltd's claim against EV Technology Pte Ltd for sums due under a loan agreement. In a counterclaim, EV Technology Pte Ltd, Kwek Yan Ping, SEV Smart Pte Ltd, and SEV Holding Pte Ltd sued Capajet and six others including Zhao FeiYan, Geoffrey Owen Cassidy, and TG Holdings HK Ltd. The Appellate Division examined whether permission to appeal is required against orders on summary judgment and striking out, consolidating two separate originating applications (AD/OA 2/2026 and AD/OA 5/2026) for that purpose. Capajet and Zhao FeiYan were represented by Narayanan Sreenivasan and Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin of Sreenivasan Chambers LLC and Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC; the respondents by Sankar S/O Kailasa Thevar Saminathan and Tessa Low Wen Xin of Sterling Law Corporation.
[2026] SGHC(A) 16 explained
Capajet Pte. Ltd. v EV Technology Pte. Ltd. & 3 Ors ([2026] SGHC(A) 16) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 14 May 2026. 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 [2026] SGHC(A) 16 about?
Capajet Pte. Ltd. v EV Technology Pte. Ltd. & 3 Ors ([2026] SGHC(A) 16) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Striking out”, “Civil Procedure — Summary judgment”, and “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Whether permission to appeal required”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(A) 16 consider?
The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(A) 16 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 289. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
Capajet Pte Ltd sued EV Technology Pte Ltd for sums due under a loan agreement, while EV Tech and related parties counterclaimed alleging an unlawful conspiracy against them. The Appellate Division considered applications for permission to appeal against lower court decisions on summary judgment and striking out. The court allowed SUM 2 (procedural application) but dismissed OA 2 and OA 5, refusing permission to appeal the summary judgment and striking-out decisions.
Did the Appellate Division require permission to appeal against summary judgment and striking out orders in Capajet v EV Technology 2026 ([2026] SGHC(A) 16)?
In [2026] SGHC(A) 16, Justice Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and See Kee Oon JAD of the Appellate Division examined whether permission to appeal is required against orders on summary judgment and striking out, in applications AD/OA 2/2026 and AD/OA 5/2026 arising from Capajet Pte Ltd's loan claim against EV Technology Pte Ltd in HC/OC 834/2024.
What was the loan dispute between Capajet Pte Ltd and EV Technology Pte Ltd in the 2026 Appellate Division case ([2026] SGHC(A) 16)?
Capajet Pte Ltd sued EV Technology Pte Ltd for sums due under a loan agreement in HC/OC 834/2024. EV Technology and related parties Kwek Yan Ping, SEV Smart Pte Ltd, and SEV Holding Pte Ltd counterclaimed against Capajet and six others. The Appellate Division in [2026] SGHC(A) 16 dealt with permission-to-appeal questions from the summary judgment and striking-out decisions in that dispute.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (13)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC(A) 16)