Posted on

Case: Singapore High Court lays down framework for determining whether to not enforce a trust for illegality

Significance: The General Division of the High Court of Singapore (per Goh Yihan JC as he then was) laid down a legal framework adapted from that in Ochroid Trading* (in which the Singapore Court of Appeal established the framework for illegality in claims in contract and recovery in restitution) for determining whether to not enforce a trust for illegality (see [80]).

Lau Sheng Jan Alistair v Lau Cheok Joo Richard [2023] SGHC 196

* Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another [2018] 1 SLR 363

Continue reading “Case: Singapore High Court lays down framework for determining whether to not enforce a trust for illegality”

Posted on

Case Update: Philip Antony Jeyaretnam & Another v Kulandaivelu Malayaperumal & Another [2019] SGHC 214

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Singapore High Court holdsĀ a person who assumed responsibility over the well-being and financial affairs of another person who lacks mental capacity to be a fiduciary and imposed an equitable lien over a HDB flat purchased with monies taken from the person lacking mental capacity.

Continue reading “Case Update: Philip Antony Jeyaretnam & Another v Kulandaivelu Malayaperumal & Another [2019] SGHC 214”

Posted on

Case Update: BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83; BOK v BOL [2017] SGHC 316 – Court sets aside trust on grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence and unconscionability, construes scope of living trust

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Significance: Singapore High Court sets aside a trust on grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence and unconscionability, construes scope of living trust to include the plaintiff’s interest under a will. The Court of Appeal (“CA“) upheld the decision but disagreed with the trial judge on certain findings. The CA also rejected the broad doctrine of unconscionability as being too uncertain and subjective, affirming instead the narrow doctrine.

Continue reading “Case Update: BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83; BOK v BOL [2017] SGHC 316 – Court sets aside trust on grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence and unconscionability, construes scope of living trust”

Posted on

Case Update: Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others [2018] SGHC 239 – Singapore High Court rules on but for causation for equitable compensation

Significance: Singapore High Court (Coram: Chua Lee Ming J) held that AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] 3 WLR 1367 (ā€œAIBā€) should be followed in that but-for causation should be established by the claimant to obtain equitable compensation where there has been a breach of trust.

Continue reading “Case Update: Winsta Holding Pte Ltd and another v Sim Poh Ping and others [2018] SGHC 239 – Singapore High Court rules on but for causation for equitable compensation”

Posted on

Article: Share Capitalisation Table for Financing and Equity Rounds

What is a Capitalisation Table?

The capitalisation table (cap table) is a single, internally-consistent document explaining how ownership over the company is divided.

When a company is initially set up, 100% of the ownership over the company will typically be allocated to the founders and angel investors, with a specific number of shares allocated to each individual. The cap table records how these shares are allocated.

Continue reading “Article: Share Capitalisation Table for Financing and Equity Rounds”

Posted on

Case Update: Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v Goh Pui Kiat [2017] SGHC 72 – Successful Claim for Breach of Confidentiality and Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means

Significance: Singapore High Court held that former director, a aesthetic doctor, breached obligations of confidentiality and conspired with intent to injure the former company (a medical clinic) by unlawful means. The Court held that the damages payable would be the loss computed based on the profits to the new company/clinic made from the diversion of patients and expedited by the use of the confidential information. The Court made a fair and reasonable estimate that the diversion of patients would have taken place within 6 months without the use of the confidential information, and so computed the loss based on such timeline.

Posted on

Beyonics Technology Ltd v Goh Chan Peng [2016] – HC rules on causation for equitable compensation

Singapore Law; Legal; Lawyer

Beyonics Technology Ltd v Goh Chan Peng [2016] SGHC 120 – HC rules on causation for equitable compensation

Significance: in this murky area of the law of equity and trusts, Hoo Sheau Peng JC decided that the causation rule for awarding equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duties involving the core fiduciary obligations of acting in the best interests of the principal would be the less strict approach taken by the Privy Council in the Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Co of Canada [1934] 3 DLR 465 (ā€œBrickendenā€) decision and discussed in previous SGHC decisions of Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Qing [2013] 3 SLR 631 (HC) (ā€œQuality Assuranceā€) and Then Khek Koon v Arjun Permanad Samtani [2014] 1 SLR 245 (HC) (ā€œThen Khek Koonā€).
Continue reading “Beyonics Technology Ltd v Goh Chan Peng [2016] – HC rules on causation for equitable compensation”