Abstract
Under the Singapore Companies Act, a complainant applying for leave to pursue a derivative action must give fourteen days’ notice to the company, but the judge hearing the leave application is by statute granted discretion to excuse non-compliance with the notice requirement. In Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn v Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court attempted to address for the first time the question of when the court would exercise its discretion to excuse. This article critically evaluates the decision on this issue in Airtrust, and offers guidelines synthesised from Commonwealth jurisprudence on how the Singapore courts could exercise their statutory discretion to excuse notice in the future.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
