[2014] SGHC 94

“ight derived from the CRTPA must expressly state this. See Tembusu Growth Fund v ACTAtek Inc [2017] SGHC 251 at [87] and Straits Advisors Pte Ltd v Michael Deeb (alias Magdi Salah El-Deeb) and others [2014] SGHC 94 at [115].”

“r the requisite proximity existed based on the twin criteria of voluntary assumption of responsibility and reliance: see Straits Advisors Pte Ltd v Michael Deeb (alias Magdi Salah El-Deeb) and others [2014] SGHC 94 at [90] (“Straits Advisors”) and Resource Piling Pte Ltd v Geospecs Pte Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 485 at [26]. How”

“f responsibility and reliance in determining the existence of legal proximity. This trend has been noted by the court in Straits Advisors Pte Ltd v Michael Deeb (alias Magdi Salah El-Deeb) and others [2014] SGHC 94 (at [89]–[91]):”

“onsibility and reliance would more appropriately apply (at [100]). This has been followed in several local cases such as Straits Advisors Pte Ltd v Michael Deeb (alias Magdi Salah El-Deeb) and others [2014] SGHC 94 (“Straits Advisors”) at [90], Resource Piling Pte Ltd v Geospecs Pte Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 485 at [26], and Li”