[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-386897-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-386897-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","symphony-ventures-pte-ltd-v-dnb-bank-asa-singapore-branch-grounds-of-decision","Symphony Ventures Pte Ltd - v DNB Bank ASA, Singapore Branch - Grounds of Decision","","Grounds of decision in a Singapore High Court case concerning an appeal about refusal of leave to amend a Statement of Claim. The plaintiff argued for amendments, while the court focused on whether the proposed changes introduced new causes of action arising from facts not previously pleaded, and whether allowing them would prejudice the defendant’s limitation defence under O 20 r 5 of the ROC and the Limitation Act. The judgment also addresses related issues including reasonable diligence, discovery of fraud, and procedural compliance.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/symphony-ventures-pte-ltd-v-dnb-bank-asa-singapore-branch-grounds-of-decision/386897/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/symphony-ventures-pte-ltd-v-dnb-bank-asa-singapore-branch-grounds-of-decision/386897.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Finn","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-28","2026-09-24",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":33},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What was the central issue in the plaintiff’s appeal?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The plaintiff appealed the court’s refusal to grant leave to amend its Statement of Claim, arguing that the amendments should be permitted.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"Why did the court reject the amendments sought by the plaintiff?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The court found that the amendments introduced new causes of action that did not arise out of facts previously alleged and that allowing them would prejudice the defendant’s limitation defence.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What rule and statute were key to the court’s assessment?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The court evaluated permissibility of amendments under O 20 r 5 of the ROC and assessed prejudice to the defendant’s limitation defence under the Limitation Act.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},386897,1790484885,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":33,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},34359740700684,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/1f400023980c374ae676?_k=1777273430885731487","IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF  \nTHE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE  \n[2021] SGHC 141  \nSuit No 1204 of 2019 (Summons No 4362 of 2020)  \nBetween  \nSymphony Ventures Pte Ltd  \n…Plaintiff  \nAnd  \nDNB Bank ASA, Singapore Branch  \n…Defendant  \nGROUNDS OF DECISION  \n[Civil Procedure]—[Pleadings]—[Amendment]  \nVersion No 1: 17 Jun 2021 (13:21 hrs)  \nINTRODUCTION............................................................................................1  \nBACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1  \nTHE DECISION...............................................................................................3  \nANALYSIS........................................................................................................4  \nPERMISSIBILITY OF AMENDMENTS UNDER O 20 R 5 OF THE ROC ....................6  \nThe law on amendments under O 20 r 5 of the ROC .................................6  \nPrejudice to the defendant’s limitation defence.........................................7  \n(1) Whether the defendant has a limitation defence ...........................8  \n(A) Whether there was fraud by the defendant or its agent..................................................................................10  \n(B) When the fraud could be discovered with reasonable diligence .........................................................12  \n(I) The US Decision ...................................................... 14  \n(II) Filing of the statement of claim in the Traxiar case........................................................................... 16  \n(III) Discovery with reasonable diligence by July 2014.......................................................................... 17  \n(2) Whether the amendments prejudiced the defendant’s  \nlimitation defence........................................................................20  \nWhether new causes of action based on new facts were introduced........21  \nWhether it was just to allow the amendments ..........................................24  \nNO REASONABLE CAUSES OF ACTION ............................................................25  \nBREACH OF SUPREME COURT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS..............28  \nJOINDER OF MR KILDE AS THE SECOND DEFENDANT.................28  \nCOSTS.............................................................................................................29  \nCONCLUSION...............................................................................................29  \ni  \nVersion No 1: 17 Jun 2021 (13:21 hrs)  \nThis judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.  \nSymphony Ventures Pte Ltd  \nv  \nDNB Bank ASA, Singapore Branch  \n[2020] SGHC 141  \nGeneral Division of the High Court—Suit No 1204 of 2019 (Summons No 4362 of 2020)  \nAedit Abdullah J  \n2 February, 12 March 2021  \n17 June 2021  \nAedit Abdullah J:  \nIntroduction  \n1 The plaintiff has appealed against my decision refusing leave to amend its Statement of Claim (“SOC”) . I found that the amendments added new causes of action which did not arise out of facts previously alleged, and if allowed, would prejudice the defendant’s defence under the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) (“Limitation Act”) .  \nBackground  \n2 In the present proceedings, the plaintiff sought against the defendant bank damages arising out of alleged negligence, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt in respect of a supposed breach ofa Quistclose trust, and a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff by  \nVersion No 1: 17 Jun 2021 (13:21 hrs)  \nSymphony Ventures Pte Ltd v DNB Bank ASA, Singapore Branch [2021] SGHC 141  \nlawful or unlawful means involving the defendant and others, including one Mr Andreas Aamodt Kilde (“Mr Kilde”) .1  \n3 These present proceedings took place against the bac","cbCaiswHKOlkLSIf","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiswHKOlkLSIf","pdf",255600,32,"English","# Introduction\n# Background\n# The Decision\n## Analysis\n## Permissibility of Amendments under O 20 r 5 of the ROC\n## No Reasonable Causes of Action\n## Breach of Supreme Court Practice Directions\n## Joinder of Mr Kilde as the Second Defendant\n## Costs\n# Conclusion","[{\"question\":\"What was the central issue in the plaintiff’s appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The plaintiff appealed the court’s refusal to grant leave to amend its Statement of Claim, arguing that the amendments should be permitted.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the court reject the amendments sought by the plaintiff?\",\"answer\":\"The court found that the amendments introduced new causes of action that did not arise out of facts previously alleged and that allowing them would prejudice the defendant’s limitation defence.\"},{\"question\":\"What rule and statute were key to the court’s assessment?\",\"answer\":\"The court evaluated permissibility of amendments under O 20 r 5 of the ROC and assessed prejudice to the defendant’s limitation defence under the Limitation Act.\"}]","Symphony Ventures Pte Ltd - v DNB Bank ASA, Singapore Branch - Grounds of Decision | PDF",1790278302,81]