← All Authorities
Singapore fraudulent tradingduty of care skill diligence s174

iTronic Holdings Pte Ltd v Tan Swee Leon

[2016] 3 SLR 663
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore High Court
Year2016
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Directors who allow a company to trade while insolvent may be personally liable for fraudulent trading under s.339(3) Companies Act, but only if actual dishonesty is proven, not mere negligence.

Key Principle

The SGHC held that directors who allow the company to trade while insolvent may be personally liable under s.339(3) of the Companies Act for fraudulent trading; the test requires actual dishonesty, not merely negligence.

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 iTronic Holdings Pte Ltd v Tan Swee Leon and how it applies to your situation.

Explain iTronic Holdings Pte Ltd v Tan...