Judgment Header
Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145
Loading…
[2015] SGHC 145
General Division of the High Court of Singapore29 May 2015Originating Summons No 766 of 2012
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 14 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
“le time. 39 [52] Unreasonable delay in bringing action can be indicative of lack of bona fides in the interest of the company. [53] In Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 Vinodh Coomaraswamy J said: “115 The delay between Petroships discovering the four transactions which form”
“icant is acting in good faith. The burden is on the applicant to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that it was acting in good faith: Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 145 at [66]–[67], citing Ang Thiam Swee v Low Hian Chor [2013] 2 SLR 340 (“Ang Thiam Swee”) at [23].”
“e). As we shall see in a moment, this is precisely one such occasion. The judgment against which the present appeal has been brought (see Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 (“the GD”)) focused on whether or not the pre-requisites pursuant to s 216A of the Companies Act (Cap 50”
“for breach of fiduciary duties in causing Wealthplus to enter into the four transactions. I dismissed that application at first instance: Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145 (“Petroships (HC)”). The Court of Appeal dismissed Petroships’ appeal, albeit on a different ground: Pet”
“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”
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
Petroships Investment Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 145
Case Metadata
Case No: Originating Summons No 766 of 2012
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-05-29
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.