TAN TECK KEE v RATAN KUMAR RAI

TAN TECK KEE v RATAN KUMAR RAI

On the evidence the Court found Mr Tan voluntarily assumed personal managerial control over investor funds and was an ad hoc fiduciary to Mr Rai; multiple instances of wilful default were established (improper deductions, failure to disclose and retention of US$35m) and an account on the basis of wilful default was ordered; however the committal leave against Mr Tan was set aside because service of the discovery order and penal notice on him was defective under the Rules of Court (Order 45 r7(2)(b)).

Citation
[2022] SGCA 62
Parties
Appellant / Second Defendant: Tan Teck Kee; Respondent / Plaintiff: Ratan Kumar Rai; First Defendant: Seah Hock Thiam; Third Defendant: Worldbridgeland (Cambodia) Co Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
28 September 2022
Case Number
CA/CA 1/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal against Suit 160 dismissed; appeal against SUM 2708 allowed in part (service defective) and leave for committal set aside
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Civil Contempt and Committal, Fiduciary Duties, Directors' Duties, Concurrent Fiduciary Obligations, Account of Profits, Wilful Default, Specific Discovery
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Equity Service of Process Civil Contempt and Committal Fiduciary Duties Directors' Duties Concurrent Fiduciary Obligations +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Teck Kee

Appellant / Second Defendant

Ratan Kumar Rai

Respondent / Plaintiff

Seah Hock Thiam

First Defendant

Worldbridgeland (Cambodia) Co Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a director may owe concurrent fiduciary duties to a third party and to his company
  2. 2 Whether Mr Tan owed fiduciary duties to Mr Rai
  3. 3 Whether account should be on basis of wilful default or common account

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Court found Mr Tan voluntarily assumed personal managerial control over investor funds and was an ad hoc fiduciary to Mr Rai; multiple instances of wilful default were established (improper deductions, failure to disclose and retention of US$35m) and an account on the basis of wilful default was ordered; however the committal leave against Mr Tan was set aside because service of the discovery order and penal notice on him was defective under the Rules of Court (Order 45 r7(2)(b)).

Court Disposition

Appeal against Suit 160 dismissed; appeal against SUM 2708 allowed in part (service defective) and leave for committal set aside

Orders

  • Mr Tan to render an account to Mr Rai on the basis of wilful default
  • Leave granted below to commence committal proceedings against Mr Tan is set aside for defective service of the order and penal notice