Soup Empire Holdings v Lim Cheng San: Director's Right to Inspect Company Records under Companies Act

The Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Soup Empire Holdings Pte Ltd, Lao Huo Tang Restaurant Pte Ltd, and Lao Huo Tang Group Pte Ltd against Lim Cheng San, regarding Lim's application to inspect the companies' accounting records under Section 199(3) of the Companies Act 1967. Lim claimed entitlement to inspect the documents due to his position as director and concerns about letters from IRAS regarding late tax payments. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the companies failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to deny Lim's inspection rights. The judgment was delivered on 19 September 2023.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a director's right to inspect company records under Section 199(3) of the Companies Act. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the director's right.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Soup Empire Holdings Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostYeo Choon Hsien Leslie
Lao Huo Tang Restaurant Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostYeo Choon Hsien Leslie
Lao Huo Tang Group Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostYeo Choon Hsien Leslie
Lim Cheng SanRespondent, Applicant, ClaimantIndividualAppeal UpheldWonEugene Quah Siew Ping

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Debbie Ong Siew LingJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yeo Choon Hsien LeslieSterling Law Corporation
Eugene Quah Siew PingMatthew Chiong Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Lim Cheng San, a director of Soup Empire Holdings, sought to inspect the company's records.
  2. Lim received letters and summonses from IRAS regarding late tax payments and GST returns.
  3. Soup Empire alleged Lim's inspection request was to aid an oppression action by his wife.
  4. Soup Empire also alleged Lim sought inspection to benefit a competitor.
  5. Lim obtained an injunction to prevent his removal as a director.
  6. The Companies did not object to the request in principle initially, only asking what Edger wanted to inspect.
  7. Edger was fined $5,000 for LHTG’s failure to file the financial documents for Y/A 2020.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Soup Empire Holdings Pte Ltd and others v Lim Cheng San and another matter, Civil Appeal No 32 of 2023, [2023] SGHC(A) 31

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit 465 commenced by Edger’s wife.
Soup Empire terminated Edger’s employment as Chief Operating Officer.
Soup Empire filed a defence and counterclaim against Edger, his wife and others.
Extraordinary General Meeting to remove Edger as a director.
Edger obtained an injunction to restrain Soup Empire from proceeding to remove him as a director.
Thomas applied to discharge the injunction.
Application to discharge the injunction was dismissed.
Soup Empire or Thomas instructed an investigator to trail Edger.
Edger obtained the Companies’ bank documents from OCBC bank.
Edger received letters or summonses from IRAS.
MCP wrote to SLC regarding summons from IRAS.
SLC asked Edger to liaise directly with the company on the IRAS issue.
Third court mention that Edger had to attend for the relevant summons.
MCP wrote to SLC to ask if the financial documents would be filed.
MCP wrote to SLC mentioning another letter from IRAS.
SLC replied to MCP to ask Edger to list the documents he wanted to inspect.
MCP wrote SLC to state that Edger had been fined $5,000 for LHTG’s failure to file the financial documents for Y/A 2020.
SLC replied to say that Edger would be reimbursed for the $5,000 fine.
MCP wrote to SLC to say that Edger had been forcibly removed from his employment.
Edger filed the applications for inspection.
Edger filed the applications for inspection.
MCP sent a letter to IRAS containing representations on Edger’s behalf.
Edger applied to adduce three categories of fresh evidence.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Right of Director to Inspect Company Records
    • Outcome: The court affirmed the director's right to inspect the company's records, finding that the companies had not provided sufficient grounds to deny the inspection.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Grounds for denying inspection
      • Presumptive right to inspect
  2. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
    • Outcome: The court allowed the admission of fresh evidence.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Inspection of company records
  2. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Oppression (alleged)
  • Conspiracy (alleged)

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corporate Law

11. Industries

  • Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mukherjee Amitava v DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2018] 2 SLR 1054SingaporeCited for the principle that a director has a presumptive right to inspect company documents.
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489N/ACited regarding the conditions for adducing fresh evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act 1967Singapore
Companies Act 1967 Section 199(3)Singapore
Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969 Section 41(5)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Inspection of accounting records
  • Director's duties
  • Companies Act
  • IRAS Matters
  • Oppression action
  • Fresh evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • director
  • inspection
  • company records
  • companies act
  • singapore
  • appeal
  • IRAS
  • taxes

16. Subjects

  • Corporate Governance
  • Directors' Rights and Responsibilities

17. Areas of Law

  • Companies Law
  • Directors' Duties
  • Civil Procedure