We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 25

Singapore Court of Appeal considers whether obligation to use reasonable endeavours to obtain consent of third party extended to taking further steps after consent had been initially refused
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • May 28 2015

The case of The One Suites Pte Ltd v Pacific Motor Credit (Pte) Ltd was a decision concerning a sale and purchase contract between the parties, where


Singapore Court of Appeal holds shareholder with majority voting power disentitled from claiming relief under section 216 of the Companies Act
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • January 29 2015

In Ng Kek Wee v Sim City Technology Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the operation of section 216 of the Companies Act (“section 216”


Singapore Court of Appeal holds backdated option void and unenforceable at common law
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • August 27 2014

In a recent decision, the Singapore Court of Appeal ruled that an option to purchase property could not be enforced as it had been entered into with


Singapore Court of Appeal considers requirements for derivative action under section 216A of Companies Act
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • February 27 2013

The Singapore Court of Appeal in Thiam Swee v Low Hian Chor clarified the law on the requirement of good faith for the purposes of applications for


Singapore High Court dismisses company's claims of breach of fiduciary duties against director
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • July 31 2013

The Singapore High Court in Falmac Limited v Cheng Ji Lai Charlie considered a claim of breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to section 157(1) of the


Singapore Court of Appeal finds CEO breached director's duties for making unauthorised payments to third parties albeit to procure business for company
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • May 27 2014

The Singapore Court of Appeal in Ho Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd) upheld the decision of the High Court and


Singapore High Court dismisses application to bring derivative action under section 216A as notice requirement not complied with
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • February 27 2014

The Singapore High Court in Lee Sng Eder v Wee Kim Chwee E Ors considered the requirements to commence a derivative action in the name and on behalf


Parliament introduces Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2012: legal professional privilege for in-house counsel, opinion evidence, computer output, hearsay
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • January 27 2012

The Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2012 (the "Bill") was read the first time in Parliament on 16 January 2012


Singapore Court of Appeal rules in favour of bank and reverses High Court’s finding of existence and breach of tortious duty of care owned to private banking customer
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • October 30 2013

In the recent decision in Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen, the Singapore Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision which allowed a


English Court of Appeal rules on approach for assessing damages on the basis of “loss of a chance”
  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • Singapore
  • December 28 2010

In assessing a claim for damages on the basis of "loss of a chance", the English Court of Appeal in Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc v Elektrim SA & Anor rejected the claimant's proposed approach of considering a range of possible scenarios which might have occurred but for the defendant's action or omission, and taking into account the chance of each in deriving the damages