Golden Village v Phoon Chiong Kit: Director's Fiduciary Duties & Conflict of Interest

In Golden Village Multiplex Pte Ltd v Phoon Chiong Kit, the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim by Golden Village Multiplex Pte Ltd against its director, Phoon Chiong Kit, for breach of director's and fiduciary duties. The case arose from a conflict of interest, as Phoon was also a director of Golden Harvest Films Distribution (Pte) Ltd, which was being sued by Golden Village in a separate suit. Golden Village sought an injunction to restrain Phoon from acting against its interests. The court ordered Phoon to provide a written undertaking not to act against Golden Village's interests and to abstain from participating in Suit 413 pending the resolution of a related application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orders made for the defendant to give a written undertaking not to act against the interests of the plaintiff as its director and not to participate in any manner in Suit 413 pending the outcome of SIC 3346 in that suit.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Director Phoon Chiong Kit sued for breach of fiduciary duties for acting against Golden Village's interests to benefit another company. Court orders undertaking.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Golden Village Multiplex Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationOrders made for the defendant to give a written undertakingPartialPhilip Ling, Ambrose Chia Heng Guan
Phoon Chiong KitDefendantIndividualOrders made for the defendant to give a written undertakingPartialChan Kia Pheng, Shaun Koh

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Philip LingWong Tan and Molly Lim LLC
Ambrose Chia Heng GuanWong Tan and Molly Lim LLC
Chan Kia PhengKhattarWong
Shaun KohKhattarWong

4. Facts

  1. Defendant was a director of both Golden Village and Golden Harvest Films Distribution (GHFD).
  2. Golden Village and GHFD were engaged in litigation against each other.
  3. Defendant filed an affidavit on behalf of GHFD in the litigation against Golden Village.
  4. Defendant had access to confidential information of Golden Village.
  5. Golden Village claimed the defendant was exploiting his position to benefit GHFD to Golden Village's detriment.
  6. The defendant directed that GHFD be billed a 50% share of the fixed rent payable to IMAX under the Agreement for Lease which amounted to $1.145m.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Golden Village Multiplex Pte Ltd v Phoon Chiong Kit, Suit 557/2005, [2006] SGHC 38

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Shareholders’ Agreement signed
Letter of Intent from IMAX accepted by GHFD and VRS
Agreement for Lease signed between IMAX, GHFD, and VRS
Assignment agreement signed, assigning rights and obligations to the plaintiff
Transfer Notice issued to GHFD
Transfer Agreement made between Village, VRS, GHFD, GHE and GVH
IMAX theatre operated by the plaintiff
Board meeting of the plaintiff decided that the IMAX theatre at Great World City would cease operations
Second letter sent to GHFD reminding the company and GHE that they were in breach of the Agreement for Lease
GHFD alleged that the plaintiff was in breach of its obligations under the Transfer Agreement
GHFD alleged that the plaintiff was in breach of its obligations under the Transfer Agreement
Earlier suit commenced
GHFD filed SIC 3346 in the earlier suit
Warrant to act signed by Mr Kirk Senior
Defendant filed affidavit for the defendant’s application
Defendant filed affidavit to oppose the plaintiff’s application
SIC 3346 heard by an assistant registrar
Suit 413 was struck out by AR Quek
Plaintiff's appeal allowed by Andrew Ang J, suit restored, and SIC 3346 dismissed
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duties
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant's actions constituted a potential breach of his fiduciary duties as a director of the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Acting against company's interests
      • Exploiting position for personal gain
      • Conflict of interest
  2. Conflict of Interest
    • Outcome: The court determined that the defendant was in a conflict of interest by being a director of both the plaintiff and GHFD, and siding with GHFD against the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Concurrent directorships
      • Duty of loyalty
      • Acting for competing interests

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction to restrain the defendant from acting in breach of his duties
  2. Order for the defendant to withdraw affidavits filed on behalf of GHFD

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Director's Duties
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duties

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corporate Law

11. Industries

  • Entertainment
  • Film

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Kea Holdings Pte Ltd v Gan Boon HockCourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR 129SingaporeCited to support the application regarding the statutory duties of a director under s 157 of the Companies Act and the principle that a director must act in the company's interest and not place himself in a position of conflict.
Charterbridge Corporation Ltd v Lloyds Bank LtdChancery DivisionYes[1970] Ch 62England and WalesCited for the test to determine whether a director of a company within a group is acting in the best interest of the company.
Intraco Ltd v Multi-Pak Singapore Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1995] 1 SLR 313SingaporeCited for applying the test in Charterbridge Corporation regarding the duties of a director within a group of companies.
Duke Group Limited v PilmerSupreme Court of South AustraliaYes(1999) 73 SASR 64AustraliaCited to argue against the plaintiff's application, concerning the duty of a director faced with a conflict of interest.
Fitzsimmons v The QueenWestern Australian Court of Criminal AppealYes(1997) 23 ACSR 355AustraliaCited within the discussion of Duke Group Limited v Pilmer regarding the duty of a director to disclose knowledge of a company's true financial position.
Permanent Building Society v WheelerSupreme Court of Western AustraliaYes(1994) 11 WAR 187AustraliaCited within the discussion of Duke Group Limited v Pilmer regarding the actions required of a director when a material conflict arises.
Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied TechniciansCourt of AppealYes[1963] 2 QB 606England and WalesCited regarding the relationship between the 'no conflict of interests' rule and directors who hold posts in more than one company.
Holder v HolderCourt of AppealYes[1968] Ch 353England and WalesCited by the defendant to support his contention that the plaintiff had consented to his concurrent directorships, but the court found it irrelevant.
re Duckwari PlcCourt of AppealYes[1998] Ch 253England and WalesCited by the defendant to support his contention that the plaintiff had consented to his concurrent directorships, but the court found it irrelevant.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon LtdHouse of LordsYes[1975] AC 396United KingdomCited by the defendant to argue that an injunction ought not to be granted, based on the principles for granting interlocutory injunctions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 157 Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Director's duties
  • Fiduciary duties
  • Conflict of interest
  • Shareholders’ Agreement
  • IMAX theatre
  • Transfer Agreement
  • Transfer Notice
  • Warrant to act
  • Board resolution

15.2 Keywords

  • Director
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Conflict of interest
  • Companies Act
  • Golden Village
  • Golden Harvest
  • IMAX

16. Subjects

  • Corporate Governance
  • Company Law
  • Directors' Duties

17. Areas of Law

  • Companies Law
  • Directors' Duties
  • Fiduciary Duties
  • Conflict of Interest