Judgment Header
Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas Wealth Management [2012] SGHC 28
Court DecisionSGHC
[2012] SGHC 28
[2012] SGHC 28
General Division of the High Court of Singapore7 Feb 2012Suit No 1048 of 2009/D
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 2 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
2Later cases and laws citing this decision
“practical interests; and (c) the beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to or at the mercy of the fiduciary holding the discretion or power (at [41]). In Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas Wealth Management [2012] SGHC 28, Choo Han Teck J found that the fact that the bank could not deal with the customer’s assets as it wished”
“2 AC 418 at 516A–B; Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 AC 919 at [159]; Susilawati v American Express Bank Ltd [2008] 1 SLR(R) 237 at [66]–[67]; and Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas Wealth Management [2012] SGHC 28 at [13]. On behalf of Graceland, it was submitted that Clause 3(a)(iii) of the LFC was not determinative a”
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: Suit No 1048 of 2009/D
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2012-02-07
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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.