[2012] SGHC 125

“ntract if the misrepresentation was neither made on behalf of the other contracting party nor with the knowledge of the other contracting party (Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others [2012] SGHC 125 at [287]). Even if Foong Chong Hung had made the alleged misrepresentation, the contract between the Cla”

“will address each ground as a separate matter. There has, however, been regard to the underlying justification for lifting the corporate veil. In Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others[2012] SGHC 125 (“Tjong Very Sumito”) it was said that there were generally two justifications, first, where the evidenc”

“rporate veil (NEC Asia Pte Ltd (now known as NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd) v Picket & Rail Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others [2011] 2 SLR 565 at [36]; Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others [2012] SGHC 125 at [76]). As noted by the Honourable Judge of the High Court Judith Prakash J (as she then was) in Sitt”

“ct. It is clear that the beneficial interest in the subject of sale immediately vests in the buyer upon entry into the sale (see the High Court decision of Tjong Very Sumito v Chan Sing En and others [2012] SGHC 125 at [129]).”

“e evidence shows that the company is in fact not a separate entity. Secondly, where the corporate form is abused to further an improper purpose: Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others [2012] SGHC 125 at [67].”