Judgment Header
Law Chin Eng and Another v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Lau Chin Hu and others, applicants) [2009] SGHC 223
Court DecisionSGHC
[2009] SGHC 223
[2009] SGHC 223
General Division of the High Court of Singapore30 Sept 2009OS 372/2008
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 7 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
7Later cases and laws citing this decision
“may sustain real loss or damage and that there are some prospects of obtaining relief or redress through the proposed action: Jian Li Investments at [49], citing Law Chin Eng v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd [2009] SGHC 223 at [25]. At the same time, however, the potential benefits must be weighed against “the inconvenience, e”
“Eden Aesthetics Pte Ltd and another (Khairul bin Abdul Rahman and another, non-parties) [2010] 2 SLR 667 at [8], Law Chin Eng and Another v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Lau Chin Hu and others, applicants) [2009] SGHC 223 at [6], and Low Hian Chor v Steel Forming & Rolling Specialists Pte Ltd and another [2012] SGHC 10 at [1”
“s and that there are some prospects of obtaining relief or redress through the proposed action: Law Chin Eng and another v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Lau Chin Hu and others, applicants) (“Law Chin Eng”) [2009] SGHC 223 at [25].”
“the alleged failures and that there is some prospect of obtaining relief or redress through the proposed action: Law Chin Eng and another v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Lau Chin Hu and others, applicants) [2009] SGHC 223 at [25].”
“thetics Pte Ltd and another (Khairul bin Abdul Rahman and another, non-parties) [2010] 2 SLR 667 at [1] and [8]; Law Chin Eng and Another v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Lau Chin Hu and others, applicants) [2009] SGHC 223 at [1], [5] and [6]; Low Hian Chor v Steel Forming & Rolling Specialists Pte Ltd and another [2012] SGHC”
Show 2 moreShow fewer
“show that the company will stand to gain substantially in money or money’s worth (see the High Court analysis in Law Chin Eng and Another v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Lau Chin Hu and others, applicants) [2009] SGHC 223 (“Law Chin Eng”) at [27]–[35]). I would add that there must be substance to the monetary claim which is”
“commence the derivative proceedings must be refused, for it would not be in the interests of the Companies to pursue such an action. As Kan Ting Chiu J noted in Law Chin Eng v Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd [2009] SGHC 223 at [25], it is insufficient for an applicant to merely identify the relevant causes of action for the der”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: OS 372/2008
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2009-09-30
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.