The Rule against Recovery of Reflective Loss - Is it Necessary and has it Gone Too Far?

The Rule against Recovery of Reflective Loss - Is it Necessary and has it Gone Too Far? 

9 January 2019, 5.30 pm - 7.00 pm
Singapore Academy of Law, Stamford 1, #08-08, The Adelphi, 1 Coleman Street, S179803 

This seminar reviews the rule of law that prevents a shareholder (and perhaps others) from recovering under a cause of action for loss for which the company also has a cause of action, when the shareholder would not have suffered that loss if the company had not been deprived of funds.It will address:

  • The origins and rationale of the principle.
  • The proper classification of the principle as a matter of conflicts of law.
  • Attempts to exclude the application of the principle by procedural measures in Latin American Shipping Co. v Maroil Trading Inc.[2017] EWHC 1254 (Comm); Peak Hotel and Resorts Ltd v Tarek Investments Ltd [2015] EWHC 3048 (Ch) ; Townsing Henry George v JentonOverseas Investment Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2007] SGCA 13;
  • The so-called Giles v Rhind [2002] EWCA Civ 1428 exception to the principle;CBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another [2017] SGHC(I) 6
  • The application of the principle in the context of unfair prejudice petitions or petitions for relief from oppression: Leong Chee Kin v IdealDesign Studi Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 192; Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB v Baltic Partners Ltd [2007] UKPC 26;
  • The position of indirect shareholders and ultimate beneficial owners;
  • The extension of the principle to secured creditors of the company in Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1468; Townsing Henry George v Jenton Overseas Investment Pte Ltd [2007] SGC 13.


05.00PM   Registration
05.30PM   Presentation by Mr David Foxton QC
06.30PM   Q & A by Associate Professor Goh Yi Han and Mr David Foxton QC
07.00PM   End

Click here for brochure.