Ever Strategy Consultants Limited v Corporación Crambo, S.A. & 4 Ors
Outcome
Appeal dismissed“…we dismiss the appeals by ES in their entirety.”
Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 23, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 9 September 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 7–13 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (Appellate Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Debbie Ong Siew Ling, Woo Bih Li |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Audent Chambers LLC, Breakpoint LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Setia Law LLC, Danny Ong Tun Wei, Jason Chan Tai-Hui, Jeremy Gan Eng Tong, Jordan Tan, Lee Eng Beng, Lee Jin Loong, Lim Jun Heng, Melissa Mak Sushan, Michael Chan Karfai, Nicholas Poon Guokun, Ong Ken Wei, Shawn Tien Si Yuan, Stanley Woo Wei Siang, Teo Jason, Teo Sze-Myn Tessa, Vellayappan Balasubramaniyam, Victor Leong, Wayne Yeo |
Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 23, High Court (Appellate Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (2)
Counsel (23)
Parties (13)
Case Significance
Ever Strategy Consultants Ltd v Corporación Crambo, SA and others and other appeals [2026] SGHC(A) 23 was decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court, Woo Bih Li JAD delivering the judgment of the court with Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD, on 9 September 2026 after a hearing on 27 April 2026. The claimant alleged a tripartite oral Collateral Agreement requiring its prior consent before any change to shareholdings in Panamanian company PPITSA, breached by dilutions in 2015 and 2018 of its 10% indirect interest. A Judge had struck out all claims in HC/OC 34/2024. The issues were whether the claims for breach of the Collateral Agreement, breach of trust and fiduciary duties, dishonest assistance and conspiracy by unlawful means should be struck out, and whether the 1st Dilution claims were time-barred. The court found the Collateral Agreement did not exist and dismissed the appeals.
[2026] SGHC(A) 23 explained
Ever Strategy Consultants Limited v Corporación Crambo, S.A. & 4 Ors ([2026] SGHC(A) 23) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 9 September 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) 23 about?
Ever Strategy Consultants Limited v Corporación Crambo, S.A. & 4 Ors ([2026] SGHC(A) 23) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — 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] SGHC(A) 23 consider?
The judgment refers to Limitation Act (Cap 163). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(A) 23 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 76 and [2024] SGHC(A) 18. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Appellate Division of the High Court heard three appeals by Ever Strategy Consultants Limited against a High Court decision that struck out its claims in HC/OC 34/2024 against twelve defendants, which were based on an alleged oral Collateral Agreement requiring its prior consent before changes to its indirect 10% shareholding in a Panamanian company. The court found the Collateral Agreement did not exist, held the other claims could not stand and the 1st Dilution claims were time-barred, and dismissed the appeals, fixing costs of $30,000, $30,000 and $20,000 all-in.
Why were the claims struck out in Ever Strategy Consultants Ltd v Corporación Crambo, SA [2026] SGHC(A) 23?
The Appellate Division found the alleged Collateral Agreement was a fabrication contrary to commercial common sense, so the claim was factually unsustainable. It also held there was no fiduciary obligation owed, struck out the conspiracy claim, and found the 1st Dilution claims time-barred.
What costs did the Appellate Division fix in [2026] SGHC(A) 23?
Ever Strategy Consultants Limited was ordered to pay the Liberman defendants $30,000 all-in for AD 8, the PSA defendants $30,000 all-in for AD 9, and PSA Panama International Terminal, S.A. $20,000 all-in for AD 10.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (24)
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] SGHC(A) 23)