[2014] SGCA 47

“e issue of locus standi recently considered in Ng Chik Voon & Ors v Stronghold Cycles Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 5 CLJ 761. As cited there, the Singapore Court of Appeal in Ng Kek Wee v Sim City Technology [2014] SGCA 47 on the equivalent provision in Singapore has said: “The requirement that the shareholder (here the Respon”

“lacuna in the remedies available to an aggrieved minority shareholder. [65] The court in Tob Chee Hoong’s case also referred to a Singapore Court of Appeal case Ng Kek Wee v. Sim City Technology Ltd [2014] SGCA 47 where it was held that in the context of groups of companies, courts take a practical rather than narrow a”

“ppressive or unfairly prejudicial acts or to exercise self-help negates “unfair prejudice” as control rests with the claimant. [138] The Singapore Court of Appeal in Ng Kek Wee v Sim City Technology [2014] SGCA 47 at [48] – [50] has this to say: ’48. In our judgment, the touchstone is not whether the claimant is a mino”

“l ER 735 which held that the conduct of a subsidiary’s affairs can also be the conduct of the parent company’s affairs. [118] The Singapore Court of Appeal case Ng Kek Wee v. Sim City Technology Ltd [2014] SGCA 47 held that in the context of groups of companies, courts take a practical rather than narrow and legalistic”

“(i) Ng Kek Wee v Sim City Technology Ltd [2014] SGCA 47: “[42] We think that the approach adopted in the above cited cases is sound and we also agree that, in the final analysis, the question that must be answered in this regard is whether the affairs of”