[2004] SGCA 18

“Fortune Frontier (M) Sdn Bhd [2015] 10 CLJ 599, Dr Lim Boon Ping v Sun Pharmaceutical Sdn Bhd [2020] 1 LNS 1669, and the Singapore case of Pang Yong Hock and another v PKS Contracts Services Pte Ltd [2004] SGCA 18. [14] I am mindful that questionable motivations such as the Plaintiff’s self-interest per se do not amoun”

“It will also raise the question whether the intended action is going to be in the interests of the company at all’: per Tay Yong Kwang J in Pang Yong Hock and another v PKS Contracts Services Pte Ltd [2004] SGCA 18.” [39] Leave was also declined in Eow Fun Siew & Chen Siew Wei v Mutual Life Sdn Bhd [2017] 1 LNS 1259, a”

“d to vile vilification, clouding all reasonable and rational decision and producing a perverted pursuit for personal gains (see the case of Pang Yong Hock and Another v PKS Contracts Services Pte Ltd [2004] SGCA 18 at paras 20 and 22). [73] Whilst we share the concern of the learned JC in that the court ‘cannot but be”

“ignored. In Celcom, the Court stated at page 653: "[28] ... The test of the interest of the company can be found in the Singapore case of Pang Yong Hock and Another v PKS Contracts Services Pte Ltd [2004] SGCA 18 [2004] 3 SLR 1, in this passage: Having established that an applicant is acting in good faith and that a cl”

“ion does not have any reasonable chance of success, … [28] … The test of the interest of the company can be found in the Singapore case of Pang Yong Hock and Another v PKS Contracts Services Pte Ltd [2004] SGCA 18 [2004] 3 SLR 1, in this passage: Having established that an applicant is acting in good faith and that a c”