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.

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

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 (“Brickenden”) decision and discussed in previous SGHC decisions of Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Qing [2013] 3 SLR 631 (HC) (“Quality Assurance”) and Then Khek Koon v Arjun Permanad Samtani [2014] 1 SLR 245 (HC) (“Then Khek Koon”).
Continue reading “Beyonics Technology Ltd v Goh Chan Peng [2016] – HC rules on causation for equitable compensation”

Case Update: HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Limited v Carolyn Fong Wai Lyn [2016] SGHC 31

Case Update: HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Limited v Carolyn Fong Wai Lyn [2016] SGHC 31

Significance: Singapore High Court interprets will holistically (as opposed to a clause-specific construction), orders estate’s properties to be mortgaged to raise funds for professional trustees’ fees and costs, and refuses to order that trustees be discharged as Court found it was not in the interests of beneficiaries given the ongoing litigation in relation to the estate.