Ex-IPP director Goh Jin Hian wins appeal, court says firm failed to prove his breach caused losses

[NanoRay]

Breached of duty but not liable ….

Guilty but no need to jail… possible ?

Must prove causal link between breach and the damage.

 

[NanoRay]

Lansai lah ! If the Appellate Court agrees that the Fiduciary had breached the duty of care, then a presumption [in law] arises that the Fiduciary's breach had caused the loss, and the burden of proof immediately shifts to the Fiduciary to rebut the presumption by showing that the loss would have been sustained by the Company even if the Fiduciary had not breached his or her fiduciary

For the Appellate Court to say that "IPP has failed to show" means the Appellate Court has erroneously put the burden of proof on the Company.

@ChopSengHuat KYM ?

@ChopSengHuat KYM ?

 

[ChopSengHuat]

View attachment 221801
@ChopSengHuat KYM ?

Just like ur mentor ? After marriage but maintaining she is a virgin because nobody can prove that she is a non virgin ?

 

[NanoRay]

Just like ur mentor ? After marriage but maintaining she is a virgin because nobody can prove that she is a non virgin ?

Wow ... what a jurisprudential parallel !

btw, it's "ex" mentor, ok.

 

[batman1]

Breached of duty but not liable ….

Guilty but no need to jail… possible ?

Depends whether u are the elite miw.555

 

[batman1]

Must prove causal link between breach and the damage.

The buck stops at the director.

 

[cocobobo]

That one is separate case and separate charge. That one is criminal charge, total he kernah 39 charges, even more serious LOL.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...on-damages-care-duty-company-director-5167001
"Goh still faces criminal charges that are pending before the court. He was charged with false trading in his role as former CEO of New Silkroutes Group in September 2023 and has 39 charges under the Securities and Futures Act. "

Ok thank you. I will reserve my kangaroo judgement until after the other case.

 

[nightsafari]

Lansai lah ! If the Appellate Court agrees that the Fiduciary had breached the duty of care, then a presumption [in law] arises that the Fiduciary's breach had caused the loss, and the burden of proof immediately shifts to the Fiduciary to rebut the presumption by showing that the loss would have been sustained by the Company even if the Fiduciary had not breached his or her fiduciary

For the Appellate Court to say that "IPP has failed to show" means the Appellate Court has erroneously put the burden of proof on the Company.

@ChopSengHuat KYM ?

ok. so now the question is, if the appellate court in error, what recourse?

 

[nightsafari]

View attachment 221801
@ChopSengHuat KYM ?

is this kind of judicial error common? not going to be much confidence if this is common.

 

[NanoRay]

ok. so now the question is, if the appellate court in error, what recourse?

Next General Election.

 

[NanoRay]

The buck stops at the director.

When the opinions of a High Court judge and a Court of Appeal judge are totally different, then you know either way can be the truth. It's not as if a Court of Appeal judge is more knowledgeable than a High Court judge.

This is like penalty shootout in World Cup Final. The winner is not necessarily the best team in the world.

 

[batman1]

ok. so now the question is, if the appellate court in error, what recourse?

Too bad.We did not have recourse to the Privy Council .

 

[nightsafari]

When the opinions of a High Court judge and a Court of Appeal judge are totally different, then you know either way can be the truth. It's not as if a Court of Appeal judge is more knowledgeable than a High Court judge.

This is like penalty shootout in World Cup Final. The winner is not necessarily the best team in the world.

Yeah, but they get to take home the trophy and the bragging rights anyways.