[2015] SGHC 52

“where our courts have endorsed or applied the principle of (insider) reverse piercing. In advancing the Reverse Piercing Argument, Mr Liew relied on Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch [2015] SGHC 52 (“Koh Kim Teck”). However, for the following reasons, I considered that Koh Kim Teck did not support the R”

“ny as opposed to a third party such as a creditor or contractor that invites the court to disregard the separate legal personality of the company. In Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch [2015] SGHC 52 (“Koh Kim Teck”), I left the issue of whether reverse piercing was legally permissible open, and dismisse”

“le, the pleadings [are] unarguably bad and it must be impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed before the court will strike it out” (Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch [2015] SGHC 52 at [21] and Bank of China Ltd, Singapore Branch v BP Singapore Pte Ltd and others [2021] 5 SLR 738 at [21”

“ly bad and it must be impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed before the court will strike it out” (see the High Court decisions of Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch [2015] SGHC 52 at [21] as well as Bank of China Ltd, Singapore Branch v BP Singapore Pte Ltd and others [2021] 5 SLR 738”

“contractual terms relied upon may involve findings of fact which are best resolved at trial. This is consistent with the High Court’s observations in Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch [2015] SGHC 52 at [70].”