Lion City Holdings: Asad Jumabhoy's Examination under Companies Act

In the High Court of Singapore, Tay Yong Kwang J dismissed Asad Jumabhoy's application to set aside an order for examination sought by the liquidators of Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd, Mick Aw Cheok Huat and Christopher Bruce Johnson. The liquidators sought the examination under section 285 of the Companies Act to investigate the company's affairs. Jumabhoy argued he had already provided sufficient information and that the examination was a fishing expedition to support a breach of fiduciary duty claim. The court found the examination justified, considering the liquidators' duty to fully investigate the company's affairs and the existence of rival factions within the board of directors.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Former director Asad Jumabhoy sought to discharge an order for examination by liquidators. The court dismissed the application, finding the examination justified.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Asad JumabhoyApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Mick Aw Cheok HuatRespondentIndividualOrder for examination upheldWon
Paul Ng of Independent Practitioner
Lionel Tay of Independent Practitioner
Christopher Bruce JohnsonRespondentIndividualOrder for examination upheldWon
Paul Ng of Independent Practitioner
Lionel Tay of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Loh Wai MooiBih Li & Lee
Rowena ChewBih Li & Lee
Paul NgIndependent Practitioner
Lionel TayIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Asad Jumabhoy is the former managing director of Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd.
  2. Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd was ordered to be wound up on 24 March 2000.
  3. The liquidators applied for an order to examine Asad Jumabhoy on issues concerning the company's affairs.
  4. The liquidators commenced Suit No. 450 of 2002 against Asad, his father and his brother for breach of fiduciary duty.
  5. Asad argued that he had already co-operated with the liquidators and answered their queries.
  6. The liquidators argued that there were still numerous areas regarding the company’s affairs in which they needed clarification from Asad.
  7. The liquidators were concerned about two transactions in 1996 in which Asad purchased the company’s shares in two other entities at what appeared to be a significant undervalue.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd, CWU 14/2000, SIC 601594/2002, [2003] SGHC 43

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd ordered to be wound up
Liquidators applied for order to examine Asad Jumabhoy
Hearing adjourned
Liquidators commenced Suit No. 450 of 2002 against Asad Jumabhoy, his father and his brother
Rajendran J granted order for examination
Liquidators appointed present solicitors
Examination adjourned after Asad's solicitors informed the District Judge that they might be taking out an application to vary the order made by Rajendran J
Asad's solicitors took out application seeking to set aside, discharge, vary or modify the order of 23 April 2002
Validity of the writ of summons in Suit No. 450 of 2002 has been extended to 17 April 2003
Application dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether order for examination should be discharged
    • Outcome: The court held that the order for examination should not be discharged.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Full disclosure
      • Delay in application
  2. Court's discretionary power to order examination
    • Outcome: The court affirmed its discretionary power to order examination.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Liquidator's entitlement to information
    • Outcome: The court held that the liquidators are entitled to information to enable them to give a fuller picture to the creditors and to the Court.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order to set aside, discharge, vary or modify the order of 23 April 2002
  2. Costs of the application

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of fiduciary duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Insolvency
  • Liquidation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Sasea Finance Ltd (in liquidation)UnspecifiedYes[1998] 1 BCLC 559England and WalesCited regarding the court's view on liquidators issuing a protective writ and then applying for examination to obtain information to plead a case.
Re Atlantic Computers plcUnspecifiedYes[1998] BCC 200England and WalesCited for the principle that section 285 should not be used to confer special advantages on a party in ordinary litigation simply because he happened to be a liquidator.
Peter Chi Man Kwong & Anor v Ronald Lee Kum SengCourt of AppealYes[1984-1985] SLR 227SingaporeCited as an example where the Court of Appeal allowed an order for examination to stand.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) s 285Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Winding up
  • Liquidator
  • Examination
  • Companies Act
  • Breach of fiduciary duty
  • Protective writ
  • Statement of Affairs

15.2 Keywords

  • Insolvency
  • Winding up
  • Examination
  • Liquidator
  • Companies Act
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Insolvency Law
  • Company Law
  • Civil Procedure