[2015] SGHC 145

“t obviously unmeritorious claims are excluded: Ang Thiam Swee at [55]; Yeo Sing San v Sanmugam Murali and another [2016] SGHC 14 at [23]; Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 (“Petroships”) at [152]. The court should be mindful that the applicant may not, in the nature of things”

“ng other considerations: Jian Li Investments at [54] citing Wong Lee Vui Willie v Li Qingyun [2016] 1 SLR 696 (“Willie Wong”) at [50] and Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 at [153].”

“(R) 1 at [17]). In relation to the required evidence as to whether it is in the practical and commercial interests of the company, the High Court in Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 145 held that (at [153]):”

“Third, the applicants cited the High Court decision of Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 (“Petroships”) in support of a “necessity” test. This was the only local case the parties could find that had allowed cross-examination. However, the court in that case did not explain wh”

“216A(3)(b) (good faith) and s 216A(3)(c) (prima facie in the interest) was, with respect, elegantly explained by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J in Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 (at [72]–[74]):”

“ie, Vivaz) to show that it had been acting in good faith: see Ang Thiam Swee v Low Hian Chor [2013] 2 SLR 340 (“Ang Thiam Swee”) at [23]; Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 (“Petroships Investment”) at [78]–[79].”

“rred me to a number of authorities, where the courts have described the pursuit of claims as forming part of a liquidator’s duties. For instance, in Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 145, the liquidator’s power to bring or defend legal proceedings in the name of the company was described as”

“he interests of the company, the court is entitled – though not bound – to infer an answer to the former based on its findings as to the latter (see Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 145 (“Petroships”) at [72]–[74]; see also Ma Wai Fong Kathryn v Trillion Investment Pte Ltd [2020] 5 SLR 137”

“As to how an applicant can discharge the burden of establishing his good faith, the following observations by the High Court in Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 (“Petroships” at [70]–[79]) are helpful:”

“to allow a creditor to bring a claim in the name of the company: see Cape Breton Company v Fenn (1881) 17 ChD 198 at 208, referred to in Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 at [163] (which was affirmed on appeal on different grounds in Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus”