← All Authorities
Singapore unfair prejudice s994minority protection

Goh Kim Hai Edward v Pacific Can Investment Holdings Ltd

[1996] 1 SLR(R) 540
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore High Court
Year1996
StatusBinding authority

Summary

In a quasi-partnership company, minority oppression under s 216 may justify a buy-out order at fair value reflecting legitimate expectations of shareholders.

Key Principle

minority oppression; quasi-partnership; legitimate expectations; buy-out; valuation of shares; s 216

Area of Law

company

Related Cases

Shafron v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2012) 247 CLR 465

A company secretary is an 'officer' under the Corporations Act and owes a duty of care and diligence under s 180 in performing their functions.

Bell Group Ltd (in liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation [2012] WASCA 157

Directors of an insolvent company owe duties to creditors, and bank claims may be subordinated where unconscionable conduct is established in dealings with the insolvent company.

Barclay v Penberthy (2012) 246 CLR 258

The standard of care under s 180 of the Corporations Act is that of a reasonable person in the director's position, having regard to the corporation's circumstances and the director's office.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Goh Kim Hai Edward v Pacific Can Investment Holdings Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Goh Kim Hai Edward v Pacific C...