LITT
Try LITT free
Farzin Ratan Karma v Helen Campos and others [2024] SGHC 41
The court held that the companies were not quasi-partnerships as they were incorporated as vehicles for the first defendant's professional practice, and the plaintiff's involvement was peripheral. Consequently, the court applied strict legal rights rather than equitable considera
Oon Swee Gek and others v Violet Oon Inc Pte Ltd and others and another matter [2024] SGHC 170
The court held that in a court-ordered buyout of an oppressed minority shareholder, the valuer may take into account factors like lack of marketability and control premiums, provided they are fair and equitable in the circumstances, while excluding factors that do not apply to th
Oon Swee Gek and others v Violet Oon Inc Pte Ltd and others and other matter [2024] SGHC 13
The court held that the 2019 Agreements were voidable for economic duress and undue influence, and ordered a buy-out of the majority shareholder's interest by the minority shareholders as a remedy for oppression.
Marten, Joseph Matthew and another v AIQ Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2023] SGHC 361
The court dismissed the minority oppression and conspiracy claims, finding that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and failed to prove the existence of the alleged 'Understanding and Agreement' or any oppressive conduct.
Deniyal bin Kamis v Mapo Engineering Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 183
The judgment in Deniyal bin Kamis v Mapo Engineering Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 183 represents a significant exploration of the boundaries of minority oppression under Section 216 of the Companies Act 1967 , particularly within the context of closely-held private companies ma
Lim Seng Wah and another v Han Meng Siew and others [2016] SGHC 177
The judgment in Lim Seng Wah and another v Han Meng Siew and others [2016] SGHC 177 serves as a definitive exploration of the procedural and substantive boundaries of minority shareholder oppression under section 216 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed). The dispute centere
ABHILASH S/O KUNCHIAN KRISHNAN v YEO HOCK HUAT & Anor
The court held that where parties have entered into a consent order to compromise a minority oppression action by agreeing to a share buy-out, the court's jurisdiction to determine the valuation is derived from the consent order itself, rather than the statutory jurisdiction unde
Wei Fengpin v Raymond Low Tuck Loong and others [2022] SGCA 32
A buyout order is appropriate in an oppression action even if the company is insolvent, and the court may use the acquisition price of the shares as a fair valuation date when audited accounts are unavailable due to the oppressor's misconduct.