Latest news with #SelinaLum
Singapore Law Watch
08-08-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Ex-Hyflux director fined over firm's failure to disclose Tuaspring info
Ex-Hyflux director fined over firm's failure to disclose Tuaspring info Source: Straits Times Article Date: 08 Aug 2025 Author: Selina Lum A former independent director of Hyflux was fined $90,000 on Aug 7 over the company's failure to disclose information relating to the Tuaspring integrated water and power project in 2011 as required under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules. A former independent director of Hyflux was fined $90,000 on Aug 7 over the company's failure to disclose information relating to the Tuaspring integrated water and power project in 2011 as required under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules. The fine was handed down to Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta by a district court after he pleaded guilty to a charge of neglect in relation to an announcement by the company to the SGX on March 7 that year. Rajsekar, a 68-year-old Australian citizen and Singapore permanent resident, was also barred from acting as a company director for five years. Six others who have also been charged with disclosure-related offences – including Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum Ooi Lin – are contesting their charges in a trial scheduled from Aug 11 to Feb 5, 2026. Hyflux, once a celebrated water treatment company in Singapore, officially collapsed in 2021 after facing financial woes from its foray into the energy business through the Tuaspring plant. On Aug 7, Deputy Public Prosecutor Kevin Yong told the court that Hyflux intentionally failed to disclose information in the March 7, 2011 announcement that would have allowed investors to make fully informed decisions. The announcement stated that Hyflux had been named the 'preferred bidder' by national water agency PUB to build and operate Singapore's second and largest seawater desalination plant in Tuas for a concession period of 25 years. The announcement also stated that the cost of the Tuaspring project was $890 million. It mentioned that a power plant would be built to supply electricity to the desalination plant, and that excess power would be sold to the power grid. However, it did not disclose that Hyflux was going into the business of selling electricity for the first time. The company also failed to disclose that the profitability of the power plant was contingent on revenue from the sale of electricity, which was projected to make up the significant majority of Tuaspring's revenue. DPP Yong said drafts and e-mails leading up to the release of the final version of the announcement showed an intention by Hyflux to downplay the power plant component of Tuaspring, and to instead focus on the desalination plant component. In particular, information on Tuaspring being Hyflux's entry into the energy retail business in the first draft of the announcement was removed in subsequent drafts. The prosecutor said this information would be likely to influence investors in deciding whether to buy or sell Hyflux's shares, as it would have revealed that the company was entering a new business outside its core competency of desalination. The information would also have revealed that the profitability of Tuaspring was contingent on the revenue from electricity sales, rather than from the sale of water to PUB over the 25-year concession contract. 'This would have exposed Tuaspring to significant market risks due to the volatility of electricity prices,' he added. The final draft was circulated by e-mail to Hyflux's five independent directors before the announcement was made. Rajsekar did not respond. DPP Yong said the other four directors responded, but none of them made any comments regarding the omission of the relevant information. As it turned out, the risks did materialise when electricity prices fell sharply some time in 2015 and remained suppressed through 2017, he said. Because the profitability of Tuaspring hinged on electricity revenue, the fall in electricity prices ultimately led to Hyflux falling into the red for the first time in the company's history. In Hyflux's annual report for 2017, the company reported a loss of more than $115 million after tax. On May 21, 2018, Hyflux suspended trading of its shares. The company then filed for a debt moratorium, which was granted by the High Court on June 19, 2018. On Nov 16, 2020, Hyflux was placed under judicial management. Its share price was wiped to zero. The company had 16,936 ordinary shareholders and 20,104 preference shareholders as at March 14, 2018. On July 21, 2021, the High Court approved Hyflux's winding up. DPP Yong sought a fine of $90,000 for Rajsekar, saying that the harm caused was high while Rajsekar's culpability was low. He said the sentence meted out must send a clear signal that company directors are ultimately responsible for the company's compliance with continuous disclosure requirements. The prescribed sentence is a fine of up to $250,000, a jail term of up to seven years, or both. Defence counsel Suresh Damodara noted that his client was not copied on any of the earlier drafts. Rajsekar had invested his own money in Hyflux and lost $1 million, said Mr Damodara, adding that his client believes the investment indicated his honest belief that the Tuaspring project was commercially viable. Mr Damodara added that his client has decided to give up corporate life altogether. In sentencing, District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt agreed with the prosecution's submission that deterrence was the main consideration. The judge also accepted that neglect was the lowest degree of responsibility for such offences. A second charge, for non-disclosure related to Hyflux's offer of $200 million worth of shares on April 3, 2011, was taken into consideration during sentencing. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
29-07-2025
- Singapore Law Watch
Man exposed daughter's identity despite court order after she was removed from his care
Man exposed daughter's identity despite court order after she was removed from his care Source: Straits Times Article Date: 29 Jul 2025 Author: Selina Lum A Youth Court judge said the girl should not be returned to the man's care until he is sufficiently fit to care for her. A man exposed the identity of his teenage daughter despite court orders not to do so, after she was placed in the care of her grandparents to prevent him from emotionally abusing her. He also disclosed her identity when he sent e-mails to various foreign embassies to seek political asylum, saying that he wanted to relocate out of Asean and the Commonwealth to return to his 'Ural-Altaic' roots, seemingly referring to a language grouping largely rejected by modern linguists. In a written judgment published on July 26, a Youth Court judge said the girl, who is now 16 years old, should not be returned to the man's care until he is sufficiently fit to care for her. District Judge Wendy Yu considered the man's breaches of court orders, such as by disclosing her identity to others, and his refusal to accept professional attempts to help ease the girl back to living with him. The judge said: 'The father's recent act of disclosing the child's identity... by copying the multiple foreign embassies also persuaded me that the father still does not seem to have insight currently as to how his conduct would compromise the well-being of the child.' Nevertheless, the judge said attempts should be made to heal the father-daughter relationship. She extended the girl's stay with her grandparents by six months to offer some stability as she is taking her O-level examinations at the end of 2025, and to give the professionals a chance to help reintegrate her back to living with her father. 'If the father still refuses the therapeutic sessions to work on helping the child feel safe at the prospect of living with him, it is to his own detriment and will only delay the reintegration process. The ball is in his court.' According to the judgment, the father has care and control of the girl. No details were given on the custody arrangement between him and her mother. In May 2022, the Child Protective Service (CPS) recommended that the child be put in the care of her paternal grandparents for a year, with a review after six months. In applying to the court for a care and protection order, CPS said the girl was at risk of being ill-treated by the father and that she behaved in a manner that was harmful to herself. But the father was unwilling to take remedial steps. CPS added that she was likely to suffer from emotional harm owing to emotional or psychological abuse by the father. At the review hearing in December 2022, CPS recommended that she stay with her grandparents for a year. The man contested the recommendations. In August 2023, after speaking to the girl, who was then 14 years old, the judge ordered the child to be placed under her grandparents' care for a year. In August 2024, CPS recommended for the order to be extended for another year. The father objected to this, while the mother agreed. CPS submitted that he had subjected the child to 'persistent acts of rejection or degradation' that are harmful to her well-being or sense of self-worth. The court was told that the man was confrontational during access sessions between the child and him. He had also persistently revealed her identity online. In particular, he recorded six access sessions between January and March 2024 without permission and uploaded them on YouTube and his website. He also uploaded a copy of an affidavit that contained references to the child's name. He was given a two-year conditional warning by the police for recording and uploading photos of his access sessions on social media platforms. According to CPS, the girl's 'emotions became very unstable' after she learnt of the uploading of the videos. In November 2024, the man alleged that he had 'discovered corrupt practices' and that CPS wanted to extend the order 'for as long as possible to generate fraudulent counselling fees'. He also told the court that he did not intend to remove the online content. Subsequently, CPS told the court that, between May 6 and 21, the man sent multiple e-mails to foreign embassies, which resulted in the disclosure of the girl's identity. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
24-07-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Warehouse owner and tenant sue each other over fire in 2020, judge awards landlord $814
Warehouse owner and tenant sue each other over fire in 2020, judge awards landlord $814 Source: Straits Times Article Date: 24 Jul 2025 Author: Selina Lum Landlord had sued for $600k; judge finds tenant's only breach was over stamp duty The owner of a Sungei Kadut warehouse that caught fire in May 2020 blamed its tenant for starting the fire, claiming more than $600,000 in damages in a lawsuit. The tenant, a scrap vehicle company, countersued for unspecified losses due to the fire, alleging that the fire hose reel in the warehouse malfunctioned because the landlord had failed to properly maintain it. The High Court dismissed both sides' claims, but ordered the tenant to reimburse $814 to the landlord for stamp duty under the tenancy agreement. On July 18, Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan issued written grounds setting out the reasons for his decision. The judge said the landlord, Feida Bus Consortium, failed to show that the tenant, Royal Autoz Exporter, had breached any terms of the tenancy agreement, except for the clause on stamp duty. Feida Bus Consortium had alleged that the fire started when the tenant's employees carried out works either on or near a car at the warehouse – a claim the tenant denied. It sued Royal Autoz Exporter for alleged breach of contract and negligence. The judge said there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant's employees had been working in the warehouse at the time of the fire. In rejecting the tenant's counterclaim, the judge said there was evidence that the fire hose was working at the time. In any event, he said, there was no evidence that the landlord was obliged to maintain fire-fighting equipment in the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, a total of 19 emergency vehicles and about 100 firefighters were deployed to battle the blaze at 6 Sungei Kadut Way, a Facebook post by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) stated. The post said the SCDF was alerted to the fire at about 7pm that day and that the fire was put out at 9.15pm. According to the judgment, the two-storey warehouse was divided into sections, one of which was rented out to the defendant. The landlord, which provided chartered bus services and conducted vehicle repairs, occupied one section. Another section was used as a dormitory for workers employed by the landlord and its related companies. The landlord and the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement on March 24, 2020, which stipulated a monthly rent of $15,000. Barely two weeks later, 'circuit breaker' restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19, and no work was supposed to be carried out in workshops and factories. On May 4, 2020, a deregistered 2.4-litre Chery Tiggo car was towed into the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, two of the tenant's employees were in the warehouse when the fire broke out. The tenant claimed they were there only to move vehicles into the warehouse. At about 6.30pm, one employee spotted flames underneath the Chery's engine and used a forklift to elevate the car. A resident of the dormitory pulled a fire hose from a reel in the warehouse. The tenant claimed that no water came out of the hose, but the landlord disputed this. Flammable liquid ignited as it leaked from the car. Despite various workers fighting the flames with fire extinguishers, the fire spread, forcing them to flee the warehouse. The fire damaged the tenant's stock of vehicles and spare parts. The landlord said various parts of the warehouse's structure were damaged. The building was ordered to be closed for about 18 months for repairs. SCDF conducted investigations and issued a report in September 2023. A forensic firm engaged by the landlord's fire insurance company prepared an expert report for the trial. The tenant, represented by Mr Palaniappan Sundararaj, engaged a fire investigation consultant as the defence expert. The judge noted that both experts, as well as SCDF, were unanimous in their view that the fire likely originated from the car. The exact cause of the fire remains unknown, said the judge. The landlord, represented by Mr Thomas Toh, contended that the tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from storing 'diesel' tanks in the warehouse. The judge said he saw no reason to extend this clause to tanks containing other types of fuel. The landlord also argued that by storing vehicles and a forklift on the premises, the defendant had breached a clause which stated that the warehouse was to be used for 'vehicle spare parts and body kit'. The judge said this clause did not prevent the tenant from using the warehouse for other purposes. He added that the landlord knew and consented to the tenant using the warehouse for scrapping vehicles. The landlord also argued that the tenant should have removed fuel from the vehicle before storing it in the warehouse, citing a clause that any chemical that is fire hazardous was to be stored in a safe corner. The judge disagreed that this meant the tenant was obliged to remove fuel from the vehicle. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
09-07-2025
- Singapore Law Watch
‘Faction' members lose court challenge against expulsion from Buddhist organisation
'Faction' members lose court challenge against expulsion from Buddhist organisation Source: Straits Times Article Date: 09 Jul 2025 Author: Selina Lum The judge said the claimants were given a full and fair opportunity to be heard but made a deliberate choice not to defend themselves. Twenty members of Buddhist organisation Soka Gakkai Singapore (SGS) who were expelled for taking part in an informal study group have lost their High Court challenge against their expulsions. The leadership of SGS was largely of the view that the existence and activities of the 'faction' group were contrary to the interest and harmony of the association. The 20 individuals alleged that they were not given a fair opportunity to be heard and that the leaders who expelled them showed bias and prejudgment. In a written judgment on July 8, Justice Philip Jeyaretnam rejected their arguments and upheld the expulsions. The judge concluded that the claimants were given a full and fair opportunity to be heard, but made a deliberate choice not to defend themselves. 'The claimants chose not to avail themselves of this opportunity and cannot complain that they were denied the right to be heard,' he said. The judge added: 'Upholding the decisions to expel the claimants does not mean that the claimants are not free to pursue their faith, only that they must do so outside membership of SGS.' SGS, an organisation practising Nichiren Buddhism in Singapore, is part of an international network of affiliated organisations. It was first registered as a society in 1972 and then as a charity in 1985. Under its Constitution, members can be expelled if they are determined by the management committee to have, among other things, acted against the interests or harmony of the association. In the current case, the 20 individuals were in a group named Solidarity of Genuine Sensei's Disciples (SGSD). One of the leadership figures of the group is an expelled former member of SGS. The group held monthly study sessions over Zoom. It also pooled funds to buy study materials and develop a mobile application. Their lawyer, Mr Choo Zheng Xi, likened SGSD to a Bible study group formed by members of the congregation of a Christian church. In August 2022, a former member of the group, whose former wife is one of the 20 claimants, revealed its existence to a leader of SGS. In December that year, the management committee took the view that the formation of the group, if true, would be 'unorthodox and unacceptable, being contrary to the interests and harmony of SGS', and required further investigation. In February 2023, senior leaders of SGS held training sessions for all levels of leaders, where they stated that SGSD 'spread resentment and dissatisfaction towards SGS and its central figures'. The senior leaders said there was a need to 'confront the influence of evil... (and) crush the malicious actions' of the group. All the claimants were also invited to dialogue sessions, in an attempt to stop them from being part of the group, said SGS, which is represented by Mr Goh Kok Yeow. The seven who attended the sessions were told by leaders that the 'faction' group disrupted the unity of SGS. Between April 2023 and January 2024, SGS notified the individuals to attend disciplinary hearings. The alleged misconduct included congregating as a group with a self-given name, organising activities not aligned with SGS' objectives, and soliciting funds without SGS' knowledge and approval. SGS provided bundles containing text messages and other documentary evidence after the individuals asked for substantiation. None of the claimants attended the hearings, which began in November 2023. After the hearings concluded, the individuals were asked to resign, in letters issued between December 2023 and February 2024. When they refused, the association issued them notices of expulsion in March 2024. Expulsion meant the loss of the right to participate in regular SGS activities and to certain benefits such as conferment of a sacred object and issue of an introduction letter to visit Soka Gakkai International in Japan, both of which are discretionary. The 20 individuals then took SGS to court, seeking a declaration that the expulsions were null and void because they were in breach of the rules of natural justice or were irrational or unreasonable. In his judgment, Justice Jeyaretnam emphasised that the court does not intervene on whether the individuals deserved to be expelled, or on any question of religious doctrine. The judge said the question before him was whether the decisions were procedurally fair and whether the decisions were irrational or unreasonable. Justice Jeyaretnam said the claimants were given ample notice of the allegations that they had to answer to but made a deliberate choice not to attend the hearings or rebut the allegations. SGS provided evidence of SGSD being an organised group led by an expelled former member. Evidence was also provided that the group had its own mobile app and raised funds for an unauthorised project. The judge also disagreed that the leadership had prejudged the disciplinary cases against the claimants. He noted that it was only after the training and dialogue sessions failed to bring the group members back into the fold that the leadership moved on to disciplinary proceedings. Tang Huixian and others v Soka Gakkai Singapore [2025] SGHC 131 Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
09-06-2025
- Health
- Singapore Law Watch
NUH withdraws bankruptcy bid against former patient after finding out he was in nursing home
NUH withdraws bankruptcy bid against former patient after finding out he was in nursing home Source: Straits Times Article Date: 09 Jun 2025 Author: Selina Lum Man owed more than $290,000 after he sued hospital for negligence and lost case. The National University Hospital (NUH) withdrew bankruptcy proceedings against a former patient after finding out that he was a fully subsidised patient in a nursing home. The man, Mr Philip Soh Keng Cheang, 61, had owed more than $290,000, mostly in legal costs and hospital bills, after he sued NUH for negligence and lost the case. But the hospital's change of mind occurred barely an hour before the bankruptcy hearing in February, and was not conveyed in time to its lawyers, which meant Mr Soh was declared bankrupt. More than two months later, the High Court allowed NUH's request to rescind the bankruptcy order, then granted permission for it to withdraw the bankruptcy application. On May 29, Assistant Registrar Elton Tan published written grounds for his decision. He noted that the change of mind took place before the bankruptcy order was made, but it was not surfaced to him at the hearing on Feb 6 owing to 'the unfortunate consequence of certain events' for which neither side was to blame. He added that it would be an obvious injustice for the bankruptcy order to remain in place, as NUH has agreed not to pursue bankruptcy proceedings on compassionate grounds, given Mr Soh's physical condition and financial situation. In 2014, Mr Soh sued NUH following surgery performed on the neck portion of his spine. He experienced weakness and partial paralysis after the procedure. Mr Soh alleged that NUH was negligent by failing to diagnose at an earlier stage his condition of peripheral neuropathy, which develops when nerves outside the brain and spinal cord are damaged. In October 2021, the lawsuit was dismissed by a High Court judge, who said Mr Soh had not proved his case. Mr Soh was ordered to pay outstanding hospital bills amounting to $26,463.73 and legal costs totalling $237,410.22. In December 2024, NUH filed a bankruptcy application against Mr Soh after he failed to respond to a statutory demand for a sum of $292,001.24, including interest and other costs. The bankruptcy application was slated to be heard via videoconference at 2.30pm on Feb 6. On Feb 3, Mr Soh sent a letter to the court, stating that he could not attend the hearing and that he would respect the court's decision. Mr Soh said he has been a resident at the Woodlands Care Home since February 2018 with no source of income, and that all his nursing home expenses and medical expenses were fully subsidised. Medical social workers from NUH sought to verify the information. Just before 1pm on Feb 6, the team reported internally to confirm that Mr Soh was in a nursing home and relied on the Medical Fee Exemption Card scheme to pay for his medical expenses. To qualify for the scheme, an individual must have savings of $6,000 or less and monthly per capita family income of $800 or less, and be a resident of a publicly funded nursing home or sheltered and disability home. At about 1.30pm, NUH chief executive Aymeric Lim gave instructions for the bankruptcy application to be withdrawn. After receiving the instructions shortly before 2pm, NUH staff called the law firm but were told the lawyer in charge could not be reached. Later that afternoon, NUH was told that the hearing had taken place and the bankruptcy order had been made. The next day, NUH's lawyers told the court it wanted to withdraw the bankruptcy application. NUH also engaged Senior Counsel Kelvin Poon from Rajah & Tann as its new lawyer. Rajah & Tann filed a formal application to rescind the bankruptcy order, along with an affidavit setting out the details surrounding NUH's decision and submissions on the law. In a letter to the court, Mr Soh expressed gratitude to NUH for its position. Contacted by The Straits Times, an NUH spokesperson said that, as a public healthcare institution, the hospital has to ensure that resources are managed responsibly. The spokesperson said that, over the years, NUH had tried to convince Mr Soh to tap MediShield to help reduce his out-of-pocket payment, but he refused to sign the medical claim authorisation form. The bankruptcy filing was a last resort to recover the debt, given Mr Soh's lack of response to its efforts and demands, said the spokesperson. 'While the rationale for the initial (bankruptcy) action remains valid, we have carefully considered the circumstances and determined that this case warrants an alternative resolution,' said the spokesperson. The spokesperson said NUH will continue to reach out to Mr Soh to work towards an amicable resolution. Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
