THE TIMKEN COMPANY v UNITED SHIPPING SERVICES PTE. LTD.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 3–9 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Gerome Goh Teng Jun |
| Charges / claim | Tort, Damages, Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Francine Tan Law Corporation, Gateway Law Corporation, Afzal Ali, Dai Jingwen Annie, Emma Qing Jinjian, Lim Yong Sheng, Ng Chee Weng, Stanley Lai Tze Chang, Tan Siew Ling Francine |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 32, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (10)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
The Timken Co v United Shipping Services Pte Ltd (ST Engineering Aerospace Systems Pte Ltd, third party) [2026] SGHCR 32 is a decision of AR Gerome Goh Teng Jun in the General Division of the High Court, given on 5 August 2026 after a hearing on 14 May 2026. In HC/OC 955/2025 the claimant alleged that the defendant infringed its registered trade marks by importing and selling counterfeit bearings and supplying falsified certificates to the third party. The defendant sought contribution or joint tortfeasorship against the third party. In HC/SUM 1065/2026 the third party applied to strike out the third party notice and statement of claim. The court allowed the application, finding no reasonable cause of action or an abuse of process, dismissed the third party proceedings and fixed costs at $15,000.
[2026] SGHCR 32 explained
THE TIMKEN COMPANY v UNITED SHIPPING SERVICES PTE. LTD. ([2026] SGHCR 32) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 5 August 2026. It is categorised under Tort, Damages, and 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] SGHCR 32 about?
THE TIMKEN COMPANY v UNITED SHIPPING SERVICES PTE. LTD. ([2026] SGHCR 32) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Joint tortfeasorship”, “Damages — Apportionment — Contribution”, and “Civil Procedure — Third party proceedings — Pleadings — Striking out”, 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 32 consider?
The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHCR 32 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 159 and [2024] SGHCR 1. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard an application by ST Engineering Aerospace Systems Pte Ltd to strike out third party proceedings brought against it by United Shipping Services Pte Ltd. The main claim, by The Timken Company, concerned counterfeit bearings bearing Timken's registered trade marks. The court held that the third party claim for contribution or joint tortfeasorship disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively was an abuse of process, struck it out, and fixed costs at $15,000 payable by United Shipping Services Pte Ltd.
What was The Timken Co v United Shipping Services about ([2026] SGHCR 32)?
Timken alleged that United Shipping Services infringed its registered trade marks by importing and selling counterfeit bearings. United Shipping Services then brought third party proceedings against ST Engineering Aerospace Systems, which were struck out in [2026] SGHCR 32.
Why were the third party proceedings struck out in [2026] SGHCR 32?
The court held the claim for contribution or joint tortfeasorship disclosed no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively was an abuse of process. It dismissed the third party proceedings and fixed costs at $15,000 payable by the defendant.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (37)
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 32)