Singapore Court of Appeal considers classes of constructive trustee in relation to limitation periods in claim against director *

Singapore - December 20 2012
The Singapore Court of Appeal considered the classes of constructive trustee and the application of limitation periods in Yong Kheng Long & Anor v Panweld…

Co-authors: Sophie Lim, Vincent Leow.

---

Singapore High Court allows application under section 216A of the Companies Act *

Singapore - February 29 2012
Low Hian Chor v Steel Forming & Rolling Specialists Pte Ltd & Anor, leave was granted pursuant to section 216A of the Companies Act by the Singapore High Court to allow Low Hian Chor (the "Plaintiff"), a shareholder of Steel Forming & Rolling Specialists Pte Ltd (the "Defendant"), to pursue an action on behalf of the Defendant against, Ang Thiam Swee ("Ang"), a former director-shareholder of the Defendant, for breaches of director's duties owed to the Defendant.

Co-authors: Ang Cheng Hock, SC.

---

Singapore High Court finds that plaintiff deliberately filed a false claim against employer and considers ordering costs against third party instigating plaintiff *

Singapore - January 10 2012
In Sanae Achar v SciGen Ltd [2011] SGHC 253, the Singapore High Court dismissed a former employee's claim for payments under a fixed term employment contract.

---

Singapore Court of Appeal finds trades amounted to price manipulation *

Singapore - November 1 2011
In Tan Chong Koay & Anor v Monetary Authority of Singapore [2011] SGCA 36, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the appellants against a judgment of the Singapore High Court ordering them to pay the Monetary Authority of Singapore a civil penalty of S$250,000 each for infringing section 197(1)(b) of the Securities and Future Act.

Co-authors: Aaron Lee.

---

Singapore Court of Appeal holds director retains directorship and entitled to inspect accounts *

Malaysia, Singapore - August 31 2011
In Dovechem Holdings Pte Ltd (in liquidation) & Ors v Ng Joo Soon (alias Nga Ju Soon), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the HIgh Court by ruling that the respondent did not automatically retire as a director of a company upon attaining the age of 70.

Co-authors: Tham Wei Chern.

---