Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal settles previously muddied law on causation principles for equitable compensation in breach of fiduciary cases.
Significance: Singapore High Court holds 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.
Where do you find the money to make a film? If you are a new company with no operational track record or decent cash flow, you will find it difficult to find a bank that is willing to offer you an unsecured loan. In this article, I will outline the alternative sources of financing that film producers can look to.
If you found out that your employee or director has been receiving bribes or making secret profits, what civil legal recourse do you have? Or what if your employee or director has been paying bribes, what civil liability would you face? This is apart from any criminal charges or liability for corruption.
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  SGCA 83; BOK v BOL  SGHC 316 – Court sets aside trust on grounds of misrepresentation, mistake, undue influence and unconscionability, construes scope of living trust”
Significance: Singapore High Court (Coram: Chua Lee Ming J) held that AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors  3 WLR 1367 (“AIB”) 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.
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.
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  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  3 DLR 465 (“Brickenden”) decision and discussed in previous SGHC decisions of Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Qing  3 SLR 631 (HC) (“Quality Assurance”) and Then Khek Koon v Arjun Permanad Samtani  1 SLR 245 (HC) (“Then Khek Koon”).
Continue reading “Beyonics Technology Ltd v Goh Chan Peng  – HC rules on causation for equitable compensation”
Case Update: HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Limited v Carolyn Fong Wai Lyn  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.