Judgment Header
Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173
Loading…
[2015] SGHC 173
General Division of the High Court of Singapore10 Jul 2015Suit No 322 of 2012
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 6 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
“penses. The High Court judge (“the Judge”) held in favour of the Wees with respect to the main claim and dismissed the Engs’ counterclaim (see Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“the GD”)). The Engs filed the appeal in Civil Appeal No 97 of 2014 (“CA 97”), whilst the Wees filed th”
“is common ground that a resulting trustee has a duty to account by virtue of her trusteeship. The High Court has also taken this position. In Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“Cheong Soh Chin”), I took the view at [38] that a trustee’s duty to account is so fundamental that it i”
“The facts of the parties’ dispute are set out in detail in my judgment on liability in Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“Cheong Soh Chin (HC)”). They are also canvassed in the Court of Appeal’s decision on liability in Eng Chiet Shoong and others v Cheong Soh Chin and others and”
“The facts have been set out in detail in the first instance and appellate judgments in the liability phase: Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“Cheong Soh Chin (HC)”) and Eng Chiet Shoong and others v Cheong Soh Chin and others and another appeal [2016] 4 SLR 728. The facts have a”
“o a reasonable prima facie inference that there may be other instances of wilful default which have yet to be uncovered: Tan Teck Kee at [90]; Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 at [40]. Examples of misconduct which have been found to warrant the taking of accounts on a wilful defa”
“evidence of default may only surface during the taking of the accounts. Indeed, as the Mustafa Estate Beneficiaries pointed out, the courts in Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (at [2] and [42]) and Ratan Kumar Rai v Seah Hock Thiam and others [2021] SGHC 276 (at [52] and [132] (u”
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
Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 322 of 2012
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-07-10
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.