Lau Goh's son sued over US$156 million loss

Got court paper ?


is it something like that ? :

Conclusion

166 For these reasons, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the judgment below. While we agree with the Judge that Dr Goh had breached the Care Duty by reason of his ignorance of the cargo trading business, IPP has failed to show causation, ie, that the breach caused the loss in question. Also, we disagree with the Judge that the Care Duty was breached as regards the purported red flags. Finally, we find that Dr Goh did not breach the Creditor Duty in relation to the Cargo Drawdowns.

167 Turning to the question of costs, unless the parties can come to an agreement on costs, they are to file written submissions limited to seven pages, within 14 days of the date of this judgment, on the appropriate costs orders that should be made on the costs for the appeal and below. The usual consequential orders apply.

.

https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGHCA_7
 
"Corruption is good for Singapore. If there is no corruption, then I worry."

quote-retrenchment-is-good-for-singapore-if-there-is-no-retrenchments-then-i-worry-goh-chok-tong-80-36-53.jpg
 
What do you expect? Our gahment is also sleeping on the job while COE, ERP and rental prices keep sky-rocketing upwards. Zero accountability with special elite privileges.
 
Everyone already knows how our Kangaroo judiciary system works. Enough said. Snake Shan is another good example.
 
Everyone already knows how our Kangaroo judiciary system works. Enough said. Snake Shan is another good example.
The PAP ministers have crony advantage and no judge in SG will dare to rule against them or their loved ones. Everyone knows what happened to Michael Khoo who was a senior district judge in JB Jeyaretnam's 1986 trial. He found JBJ clear of all charges except one. The PAP was angry enough to immediately force the AGC to have a retrial and JBJ was sentenced to jail. Michael Khoo was transferred to the AGC immediately after this trial. No judge will dare convict a PAP minister or any member of their family. So much for an "honest" govt!
 
is it something like that ? :

Conclusion

166 For these reasons, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the judgment below. While we agree with the Judge that Dr Goh had breached the Care Duty by reason of his ignorance of the cargo trading business, IPP has failed to show causation, ie, that the breach caused the loss in question. Also, we disagree with the Judge that the Care Duty was breached as regards the purported red flags. Finally, we find that Dr Goh did not breach the Creditor Duty in relation to the Cargo Drawdowns.
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 ?:cautious:
 
Back
Top