Judgment Header
Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas Wealth Management [2012] SGHC 28
Loading…
[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.
Cited in 2 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
“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”
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
Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas Wealth Management [2012] SGHC 28
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
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.