- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,236
- Points
- 113
Tiagong , his Lawyer SC Thio Shen Yi did a great Appeal for him .

Got court paper ?Tiagong , his Lawyer SC Thio Shen Yi did a great Appeal for him .![]()
Woody Goh will claim that he was misquoted as he only promised S'poreans a Swiss Cost of Living, which the PAP has delivered.Just like his father scamming us about Swiss standard of living .
Got court paper ?
So the High Court judge Aedit will tio sacked or not?High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah
He must have been stammering in fear when having Goh CT's son before him, so he couldn't complete his sentence on Jin Hian.So the High Court judge Aedit will tio sacked or not?
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!Everyone already knows how our Kangaroo judiciary system works. Enough said. Snake Shan is another good example.
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 fiduciaryis 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.
Altogether now!!! HUAT AH!!!