Govindasamy Supramaniam v Bailey Foreign Holdings Corp: Interim Injunction for Managing Director Reinstatement

In Govindasamy Supramaniam v Bailey Foreign Holdings Corp, the High Court of Singapore dismissed an application by Govindasamy Supramaniam for an interim mandatory injunction to be reinstated as managing director of S.E.A. Hydropower Pte Ltd. The court, presided over by Justice Choo Han Teck, cited serious allegations of wrongdoing by both Supramaniam and the defendants (Bailey Foreign Holdings Corp, Adrian Bailey, Mary Bailey, and Kevin Bailey) and determined that the balance of convenience favored refusing the injunction pending a full trial on the merits.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for interim injunction to reinstate plaintiff as managing director was dismissed due to allegations of wrongdoing on both sides, pending a full trial.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Govindasamy SupramaniamPlaintiffIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Bailey Foreign Holdings CorpDefendantCorporationApplication dismissedWon
Adrian BaileyDefendantIndividualApplication dismissedWon
Mary BaileyDefendantIndividualApplication dismissedWon
Kevin BaileyDefendantIndividualApplication dismissedWon
S.E.A. Hydropower Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Eng BengRajah and Tann
Mark Cheng Wai YuenRajah and Tann
Dhillon Dinesh SinghWong and Leow LLC
Rachel Chong Sue-FenWong and Leow LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sought reinstatement as managing director of the fifth defendant company.
  2. Plaintiff and first defendant each held 50% of the company's shares.
  3. Defendants alleged the plaintiff acted against the company's interests.
  4. The defendants removed the plaintiff from his position as managing director.
  5. The plaintiff alleged the defendants 'stormed' the company to remove him.
  6. The first defendant had an option to purchase another 28% of the company's shares.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Govindasamy Supramaniam v Bailey Foreign Holdings Corp and Others, Suit 696/2005, SIC 5086/2005, 5137/2005, [2005] SGHC 199

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff sold half of his shares in the Company to the first defendant.
Defendants suspected that the plaintiff was acting against the interests of the Company.
Second and third defendants arrived early unannounced.
Application filed.
Application heard.
Application dismissed.
Decision Date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interim Mandatory Injunction
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an interim mandatory injunction.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Breach of Director's Duties
    • Outcome: The court made no determination on the alleged breach, pending a full trial.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Interim Mandatory Injunction
  2. Reinstatement as Managing Director

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Director's Duties

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Manufacturing
  • Hydraulic Cylinders

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interim Mandatory Injunction
  • Managing Director
  • Shareholders Agreement
  • Board of Directors
  • Balance of Convenience
  • Breach of Duty

15.2 Keywords

  • Interim Injunction
  • Managing Director
  • Reinstatement
  • Shareholders
  • Company
  • Directors

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions80
Company Law75
Fiduciary Duties65
Commercial Disputes60
Contract Law50

16. Subjects

  • Company Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions