Judgment Header
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163
Loading…
[2010] SGHC 163
General Division of the High Court of Singapore29 May 2010Suit No 46 of 2006/J
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 18 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
“mpliance” with the shadow director’s instructions; occasional departures from the pattern will not affect the finding of shadow directorship: Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others [2010] SGHC 163 (“RTC”) at [45]. There is no requirement that the shadow director’s directions or instructions must exte”
“iduciaries to companies is the three-part one stated by Eve J in Re Lee, Behrens & Co Ltd [1932] 2 Ch 46 (“Lee Behrens”) at 51 and adopted in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others [2010] SGHC 163 at [165]–[166]:”
“al authority between the High Court’s decision in the present case and two other cases: (i) Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club (HC)”) (together with the appellate decision in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng”
“m the pattern would not detract from this finding (see the Singapore High Court decision of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”) at [45], cited in the Judgment at [34]). Although the Directors insist that C C Li”
“dishonest or fraudulent motives in signing that agreement. In this regard, the decision in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 is pertinent. There, Chan Seng Onn J rejected the submission that the backdating of documents was always”
“tors as well as the Former Directors’ third party claims against the Current Directors (see Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163). We dismissed RTC’s appeal, but allowed the Former Directors’ third party claims in part in so far as t”
“tors is an objective one – the subjective intentions of the person are hardly relevant (see Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”) at [61]). Hence in the present case, regardless of whether the defendants were awa”
“following principles expressed in Gemma Ltd v Davies [2008] BCC 812, which were endorsed in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”) at [58]:”
“ctive one: what matters is that Anthony undertook functions in relation to the company which could properly be discharged only by a director: Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others [2010] SGHC 163 at [58]. There is no dispute that the UOB Account was a corporate account. Nor can there be any dispute”
“ess of what they are called and their motives or manner in making such corporate decisions: Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”) at [47].”
“of a “de facto director” is concerned, this has been clearly explained by the High Court in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Hock Eng Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”). In that case, Chan Seng Onn J noted that there did not appear to have been any lo”
“and another v Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others [2020] SGHC 142 (“OUE Lippo”) at [101]; Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”) at [47]). However, it is not apparent from the plaintiff’s written closing submiss”
“In Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 at [58] and Cheng Tim Jin v Alvamar Capital Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 220 at [14], the High Court endorsed the following principles expressed in Gemma Ltd v Davies [2008] BCC 812 in the inquiry on wh”
“other directors and exercising a real influence in the corporate governance of the company (Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 at [58]; Evotech (Asia) Pte Ltd v Koh Tat Lee and another [2018] SGHC 252 at [75]). In the 10 April Emai”
“attern of compliance by the 4th to 7th Defendants with instructions or directions from GSS (Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”)).”
“to act”. This description has come to be understood as a reference to shadow directors. In Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 (“Raffles Town Club”), Chan Seng Onn J explained (at [45]):”
“[2017] SGHC 73 at [33]) and would be subject to the duties ordinarily imposed on directors (Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163 at [69]).”
“equitable remedies) cannot be equated with damages: see [554] below. On the other hand, in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163, the High Court accepted, at least implicitly, that s 24A could apply to claims for breach of fiduciary d”
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
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2010] SGHC 163
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 46 of 2006/J
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2010-05-29
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.