Judgment Header
Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 98
Loading…
[2005] SGHC 98
General Division of the High Court of Singapore19 May 2005Suit 815/2004, RA 14/2005
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 8 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“to his duties towards his company, and not towards the third party. This was succinctly explained 15 by Kan Ting Chiu J in his decision in Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 98 (“Otech”) at [25], where he interpreted the requirement of bona fide in the Said v Butt principle to mean”
“f the investment when these are all prima facie acts by the companies through the agency of their directors. [89] In the Singapore High Court case of Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v. Clough Engineering Ltd [2005] SGHC 98 at [35], Kan Ting Chiu J held: ‘Where the allegation is that the defendant had conspired to and had induce”
“409. … [89] In the Singapore High Court case of Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v. Clough Engineering Ltd [2005] SGHC 98 at [35], Kan Ting Chiu J held: 'Where the allegation is that the defendant had conspired to and had induced the breach qua director, that without more, must imply that the defendant had been acting”
“409. … [89] In the Singapore High Court case of Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v. Clough Engineering Ltd [2005] SGHC 98 at [35], Kan Ting Chiu J held: 'Where the allegation is that the defendant had conspired to and had induced the breach qua director, that without more, must imply that the defendant had been acting”
“409. … [89] In the Singapore High Court case of Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v. Clough Engineering Ltd [2005] SGHC 98 at [35], Kan Ting Chiu J held: 'Where the allegation is that the defendant had conspired to and had induced the breach qua director, that without more, must imply that the defendant had been acting”
“ion in relation to his duties towards his company, and not towards the third party. This was succinctly explained by Kan Ting Chiu J in his decision in Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd [2005] SGHC 98 (“Otech”) at [25], where he interpreted the requirement of bona fide in the Said v Butt principle to mean”
“In my view, Tan CB’s conduct cannot be said to be bona fide in the discharge of his office as a director of SAA. In Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and another [2005] SGHC 98, Kan Ting Chiu J explained (at [25]), in the context of the Said v Butt exception, that:”
“ion to his duties towards his company, and not towards the third party. This was succinctly explained by Kan Ting Chiu J in his decision in Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 98 (“Otech”) at [25], where he interpreted the requirement of bona fide in the Said v Butt principle to mean”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 98
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 815/2004, RA 14/2005
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2005-05-19
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.