The Tyrell Solution Private Limited v Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 17–23 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Ong Kye Jing |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Drew & Napier LLC, Wayne Ong Law Practice, Lim Xiao Ping, Liu Enning, Ong Zhenhui Wayne, Tang Xi-Rui, Charlotte |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 35, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Parties (4)
Case Significance
The Tyrell Solution Pte Ltd v Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin and another matter [2026] SGHCR 35 was decided by AR Ong Kye Jing in the General Division of the High Court on 20 August 2026, after a hearing on 15 July 2026. In HC/OC 496/2025, The Tyrell Solution Private Limited seeks to recover US$700k from Mr Muzayyin under a loan agreement dated 3 July 2018, while he says the sum was a brokering fee and the agreement a sham. HC/OC 585/2025 is his related action. The four applications raised how further and better particulars are approached where affidavits of evidence-in-chief have been filed, the plain and obvious standard for specific production, private or internal correspondence, and implied waiver of legal professional privilege. The court allowed each of the four applications in part.
[2026] SGHCR 35 explained
The Tyrell Solution Private Limited v Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin ([2026] SGHCR 35) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 20 August 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] SGHCR 35 about?
The Tyrell Solution Private Limited v Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin ([2026] SGHCR 35) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Further and better particulars”, “Civil Procedure — Production of documents — Private or internal correspondence”, “Civil Procedure — Production of documents — Privileged documents — Implied waiver”, and “Civil Procedure — Production of documents — Documents referred to in a pleading or affidavit”, 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 35 consider?
The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHCR 35 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHCR 26, [2026] SGHC(A) 18, and [2026] SGHCR 17, and 12 more. 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 four applications in two related actions between The Tyrell Solution Private Limited and Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin, concerning a sum of US$700k that the company says was a loan and Mr Muzayyin says was a brokering fee. The applications sought further and better particulars, specific production of documents and permission to file further pleadings, after affidavits of evidence-in-chief had been filed. The court allowed each of the four applications in part and reserved costs and timelines for later hearing.
What was The Tyrell Solution v Nasrat Lucas Muzayyin [2026] SGHCR 35 about?
It concerned four applications in HC/OC 496/2025 and HC/OC 585/2025 for further and better particulars, specific production of documents and permission to file further pleadings, in a dispute over whether US$700k was a loan or a brokering fee.
What did the court decide in [2026] SGHCR 35?
AR Ong Kye Jing allowed each of the four single applications pending trial in part, granted The Tyrell Solution Private Limited permission to file a reply in OC 496, and directed that costs and compliance timelines be heard later.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (63)
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 35)