← All Authorities
Singapore Leading Case unfair prejudice s994derivative claims shareholdercompensatory damages

Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd

[2018] 2 SLR 333
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2018
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Singapore Court of Appeal set out the analytical framework for s.216 oppression claims and common law derivative actions, clarifying the proper plaintiff principle and reflective loss doctrine.

Key Principle

s.216 oppression and common law derivative action; proper plaintiff principle and reflective loss in Singapore

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 Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings L...