[2010] SGHC 163

“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”