← All Authorities
Singapore Leading Case unfair prejudice s994minority protection

Sakae Holdings Ltd v Gryphon Real Estate Investment Corp Pte Ltd

[2017] SGCA 73
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2017
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Section 216 oppression remedy in joint venture companies requires commercial unfairness; the court clarified the distinction between corporate and personal wrongs for standing purposes.

Key Principle

s.216 oppression; commercial unfairness in joint venture companies; distinction between corporate and personal wrongs clarified

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 Sakae Holdings Ltd v Gryphon Real Estate Investment Corp Pte Ltd and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Sakae Holdings Ltd v Gryphon R...