ALEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH PROSETSKII V COURTWELL ASIA LIMITED & 6 ORS
Outcome
Application allowed“I allowed the application.”
Source: [2026] SGHCR 28, High Court Registrar, decided 29 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chua Rui Yuan |
| Charges / claim | Trusts, Companies |
| Outcome | Application allowed |
| Counsel | Drew & Napier LLC, Incisive Law LLC, Paul Tan LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Setia Law LLC, Tan Jun Hong LLC, Bernice Tan Rui Lin, Koh Boon Hao Samuel, Lai Weng Han, Martin Lee Wey Vern, Surabhi Bansal, Tan Beng Hwee Paul, Tan Jun Hong, Tan Mazie, Teo Sze-Myn Tessa, Zhang Haowei Elvis |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 28, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (16)
Parties (8)
Case Significance
Prosetskii, Aleksandr Viktorovich v Courtwell Asia Ltd and others [2026] SGHCR 28 is a decision of AR Chua Rui Yuan in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 29 July 2026 after hearings on 15 April, 29 May and 17 June 2026. In HC/OC 1031/2025 the claimant alleged that the defendants conspired to transfer a vessel, held through a company in which he was a beneficial shareholder, to the first defendant, Courtwell Asia Ltd. Courtwell applied in HC/SUM 749/2026 to set aside the orders for service out of the jurisdiction and substituted service. The issues concerned the reflective loss principle, a beneficiary's rights under a trust and knowing receipt. The court held that no cause of action raised a serious issue to be tried, set aside both orders and fixed costs at $23,000 (all-in) payable by the claimant.
[2026] SGHCR 28 explained
ALEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH PROSETSKII V COURTWELL ASIA LIMITED & 6 ORS ([2026] SGHCR 28) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 29 July 2026. It is categorised under Trusts and Companies. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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] SGHCR 28 about?
ALEKSANDR VIKTOROVICH PROSETSKII V COURTWELL ASIA LIMITED & 6 ORS ([2026] SGHCR 28) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Trusts — Beneficiaries — Rights”, “Companies — Shares — Reflective loss principle”, and “Trusts — Recipient liability — Knowing receipt”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHCR 28 consider?
The judgment refers to Insolvency Act and 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] SGHCR 28 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 33, [2026] SGHCR 10, and [2025] SGHC 166, and 2 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2026] SGHCR 28?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGHCR 28 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard an application by Courtwell Asia Ltd to set aside orders giving the claimant, Aleksandr Viktorovich Prosetskii, permission to serve his claim out of the jurisdiction and to serve it by substituted service. The claimant alleged a scheme to deprive him of his interest in a vessel held through a company and a trust over its shares. The court held that none of his three causes of action raised a serious issue to be tried, set aside both orders, and fixed costs at $23,000 (all-in) payable by the claimant.
What was Prosetskii v Courtwell Asia about ([2026] SGHCR 28)?
The claimant alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his interest in a vessel held through a company and a trust over its shares. Courtwell Asia Ltd applied to set aside the orders allowing service out of the jurisdiction.
What did the court decide in [2026] SGHCR 28?
The court held that none of the claimant's three causes of action against Courtwell raised a serious issue to be tried, set aside the orders for service out and substituted service, and fixed costs at $23,000 (all-in) payable by the claimant.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (39)
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] SGHCR 28)