Judgment Header
Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268
Court DecisionSGHC
[2010] SGHC 268
[2010] SGHC 268
General Division of the High Court of Singapore8 Sept 2010Suits Nos 536 and 75 of 2008
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 9 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
9Later cases and laws citing this decision
“departed from such expectations to the extent that it has become unfair: Lim Kok Wah at [103]; Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 (“Lian Hwee Choo”) at [61]; The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International Ltd and others an”
“sented to the plaintiffs by their belated offer of a buy-out in February 2015 (see [21] above): Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 at [118]. Accordingly, the defendants should now be ordered to purchase the plaintiffs’ shareholding.”
“derstandings may arise regardless of whether there is a quasi-partnership: Over & Over at [84]; Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 at [61].”
“This generally does not involve the application of a DLOM. Kiri cited Eng Gee Seng v Quek Choon Teck [2010] 1 SLR 241 (“Eng Gee Seng”), Lian Hwee Choo Phebe v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 268 and Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan [2014] SGHC 224 (“Sharikat Logistics”). Kiri said that i”
“nership” as a necessary pre-requisite before legitimate expectations may be taken into account: Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 (“Phebe”) at [61] and The Wellness Group Pte Ltd and another v OSIM International Ltd and others and ano”
Show 4 moreShow fewer
“eniyal bin Kamis v Mapo Engineering Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 183 (“Deniyal”) at [90]; and Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 at [61]).”
“ly be regarded as oppression of the minority members’ interests unless something more is shown (Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 (“Maxz Universal”) at [60]).”
“areholders (see Lim Tong Zhen Kevryn v Cheo Jean Sheng and others [2022] SGHC 315 at [62]–[70]; Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 at [60]), and from an objective consideration of the alleged wrongdoing in the context of the parties’ r”
“of the company’s affairs could amount to commercial unfairness. Counsel relied on the case of Lian Hwee Choo Phebe and another v Maxz Universal Development Ground Pte Ltd and others and another suit [2010] SGHC 268 (“Lian Hwee Choo Phebe”) for this proposition. In Lian Hwee Choo Phebe, Andrew Ang J recognised (at [96])”
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: Suits Nos 536 and 75 of 2008
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2010-09-08
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.