Law. Faith. Justice. Community. Culture.
Significance: Singapore Court of Appeal settles previously muddied law on causation principles for equitable compensation in breach of fiduciary cases.
Significance: Singapore High Court (Coram: Chua Lee Ming J) held that AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] 3 WLR 1367 (“AIB”) should be followed in that but-for causation should be established by the claimant to obtain equitable compensation where there has been a breach of trust.
Beyonics Technology Ltd v Goh Chan Peng [2016] SGHC 120 – HC rules on causation for equitable compensation
Significance: in this murky area of the law of equity and trusts, Hoo Sheau Peng JC decided that the causation rule for awarding equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duties involving the core fiduciary obligations of acting in the best interests of the principal would be the less strict approach taken by the Privy Council in the Brickenden v London Loan & Savings Co of Canada [1934] 3 DLR 465 (“Brickenden”) decision and discussed in previous SGHC decisions of Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang Qing [2013] 3 SLR 631 (HC) (“Quality Assurance”) and Then Khek Koon v Arjun Permanad Samtani [2014] 1 SLR 245 (HC) (“Then Khek Koon”).
Continue reading “Beyonics Technology Ltd v Goh Chan Peng [2016] – HC rules on causation for equitable compensation”