Breach of Director’s Fiduciary Duties in Singapore

Navigating Director's Fiduciary Duties in Singapore: Insights from the Landmark Goh Jin Hian Case

Introduction

In Singapore, the legal framework governing directors' duties and conduct is robust, encompassing both statutory obligations under the Companies Act and fundamental common law principles in relation to fiduciary duties. This multi-layered legal structure means directors operate within a comprehensive legal net, where a breach might fall under multiple legal avenues, thereby increasing their exposure and underscoring the critical need for expert legal counsel. The legal philosophy underpinning modern corporate governance increasingly demands proactive engagement from directors, rather than passive oversight, reinforcing that a directorship is "not a sinecure, nor an honorary function. The obligation is to monitor the affairs of the corporation".

Triangle Legal LLC is a leading law firm in Singapore with expert commercial and civil litigation lawyers to help you assess your case and present a cost-effective and impactful strategy to help you navigate a potential dispute. Contact us now for a complimentary and confidential discussion about your case.

1. Duties Owed by Directors in Singapore

Directors in Singapore are subject to a comprehensive set of directors' duties, derived from both common law and Section 157 of the Companies Act (Cap. 50). These duties ensure that directors act in the best interests of the company and maintain high standards of conduct. The various duties are interconnected, forming a holistic challenge for directors, as a failure in one area can often cascade into a breach of other obligations, leading to compounding liability.

Fiduciary Duties: The Foundation of Trust

Key fiduciary duties include:

• Duty to Act in Good Faith and for the Best Interests of the Company: This is the cornerstone duty, requiring directors to act honestly and bona fide. They must consider the interests of the company alone, not in conjunction with those of a parent company or group.
• Duty to Avoid Conflicts of Interest: Directors must prevent situations where their personal interests conflict with the company's. This encompasses "self-dealing" (e.g., purchasing company assets at reduced prices or selling personal assets to the company at inflated values), "misappropriation of corporate opportunities" (diverting business opportunities that rightfully belong to the company), and undisclosed interests in company transactions. Section 156 of the Companies Act specifically mandates disclosure of such interests. It is important to note that mere disclosure without further actions taken to manage the conflict, such as abstaining from voting or discussions, may not absolve a director from liabilities. This underscores a deeper requirement for ethical conduct beyond mere legalistic compliance, fostering trust and integrity within the company.
• Duty to Use Powers for Proper Purposes: Directors' powers, conferred by the company's constitution, must be exercised in good faith and solely for the benefit of the company, not for personal gain or to entrench control.

Duty of Care, Skill, and Diligence

Directors are legally required to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence in managing the company's affairs. This entails running the company to the best of their ability, prudently reviewing financials, and questioning major decisions. Importantly, "ignorance" is not a permissible defense; directors are expected to be informed and proactive. Failure to attend board meetings regularly or to properly supervise management can be construed as negligence. While the standard of care may initially appear to differ between executive and non-executive directors, the Goh Jin Hian case reinforces that all directors, regardless of their position, are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and cannot be considered "sleeping directors". The actual conduct and involvement of a director, rather than merely their title, will dictate the standard applied, serving as a warning against passive directorship.

The Evolving "Creditor Duty"

The "creditor duty" is not a standalone duty owed directly by directors to creditors, but rather a crucial aspect of a director's overarching duty to act in the best interests of the company. The emphasis placed on creditors' interests dynamically shifts depending on the company's financial health. This is a crucial nuance, meaning directors must constantly monitor the company's financial health and adjust their decision-making calculus accordingly, demanding foresight and proactive financial management.

When a company is solvent, directors generally align with shareholder interests, as these are typically congruent with the company's well-being. However, directors are still prohibited from acting in complete disregard of or defrauding creditors. As a company approaches or enters insolvency, creditors become the primary economic stakeholders, and their interests must take precedence over those of shareholders.

The Singapore Court of Appeal, in Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 categorizes this dynamic as follows:

• Category One (Solvent): The "Creditor Duty" is generally not engaged, and directors can prioritize shareholder interests, but must not defraud creditors.
• Category Two (Imminently likely to be unable to discharge debts): Directors must act in good faith to revitalize the company, carefully weighing the potential benefits and risks of transactions for both shareholders and creditors. Creditors' interests are important but not the exclusive guiding factor.
• Category Three (Insolvency Inevitable): Creditors effectively become the main "economic stakeholder," and their interests take priority.

The court assesses a potential breach of this duty through a three-stage process: an objective assessment of the company's financial state, an examination of the director's subjective intentions (assessed for objective credibility), and a determination of whether it would be fair to relieve the director of liability.

2. Breach of Fiduciary Duties: Understanding the Legal Ramifications

A breach of director's duties occurs when a director fails to uphold their statutory, common law, or fiduciary duties, potentially causing harm to the company. Recognizing these scenarios is crucial for directors to uphold their responsibilities. The array of civil, criminal, and reputational consequences highlights the severe personal risks associated with directorship in Singapore, indicating a legal environment that holds directors to a very high standard to deter misconduct comprehensively.

Common Scenarios of Breach

Examples of actions that can constitute a breach include:

• Self-Dealing: Utilizing one's position for personal enrichment, such as purchasing company assets at a significantly reduced price or selling personal assets to the company at an inflated value.
• Misappropriation of Corporate Opportunities: Exploiting business opportunities that rightfully belong to the company for personal gain.
• Conflict of Interest: Having undisclosed personal interests in company transactions. This includes failing to disclose such interests under Section 156 of the Companies Act.
• Negligence / Failure to Exercise Due Care: Failing to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence, such as neglecting to attend meetings, properly supervise management, or review financials diligently. This can involve "sleepwalking through his time as a director".
• Improper Use of Company Assets: Using company funds, equipment, or resources for personal benefit.
• Insider Trading: Utilizing non-public company information for personal profit.
• Failure to Act in Good Faith: Making decisions that are not fair or reasonable, or that may harm the company.
• Insolvent Trading: Continuing to incur debt when the company's liabilities exceed its assets and there is no reasonable or probable expectation of repayment.
• Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements: This includes failing to maintain accurate accounting records or file annual accounts/returns, issuing dividends from non-profits, or issuing shares without proper shareholder approval.

Liabilities and Remedies for Breach

Failure to perform director's duties can result in significant penalties, including personal liability for any losses suffered by the company, its shareholders, and its creditors. Given the stringent penalties and the breadth of duties, proactive measures are essential to avoid breaches, as prevention is far better than cure.

• Civil Liabilities and Remedies:
  
  • Claim Damages / Compensation: The company, its shareholders, or creditors can initiate civil litigation to claim damages or demand compensation for financial losses incurred due to the director's misconduct. This is a common remedy for aggrieved parties.
  • Account for Profit: The company can demand the return of any secret profit or personal advantage gained by the director through the breach.
  • Recovery of Misapplied Property: This includes the clawback of unlawfully declared dividends or other company assets that were improperly used.
  • Declare Acts Invalid / Setting Aside Transactions: Decisions or transactions made in violation of a director's duty can be rendered null and void.
  • Injunction: A court order can be sought to prevent a director from committing a breach.
  • Removal from Office: Directors may be ousted from their position as a consequence of failing to adhere to their responsibilities.
  • Shareholder Actions: Minority shareholders can pursue remedies under Section 216 of the Companies Act for oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct, which may include court-ordered buy-outs of shares.
• Criminal Penalties: Severe breaches, particularly statutory violations under the Companies Act or the Penal Code, can lead to substantial fines and/or imprisonment. For instance, failure to act honestly and use reasonable diligence can result in a fine of up to S$5,000 or up to 1 year in prison.
• Disqualification: The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) or the court can disqualify a director from acting as a director for up to five years, especially if involved in insolvent or non-compliant companies.
• Reputation Risk: Public lawsuits, regulatory sanctions, and criminal charges can severely damage a director's professional standing, erode investor confidence, and make future fundraising difficult. For foreign directors, this can also lead to work visa cancellation or difficulties in securing future work visas.
• Causation: For civil claims, it is essential to prove that the loss or damage suffered was caused as a direct result of the director's breach. Sim Poh Ping v Winsta Holdings Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 35 established a rebuttable presumption of causation for breach of fiduciary duties: once a breach and a loss are demonstrated, it is presumed the breach caused the loss, placing a "very heavy burden" on the director to rebut this by showing the loss would have occurred regardless. This is a significant pro-company stance in general fiduciary duties breach cases. 

‍

3. The Goh Jin Hian Case: Background, Analysis, and Implications

The Goh Jin Hian case has provided pivotal clarifications regarding the scope of director's duties and the burden of proving causation in Singapore.

Case Background: Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP) and the Allegations

The case centers on Dr. Goh Jin Hian, a former director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (IPP), an insolvent marine fuel supplier. IPP engaged in two primary business lines: cargo trading (back-to-back purchase and sale of fuel oil) and bunker trading (purchase and delivery of bunker fuel ex-wharf).

The unraveling of a significant fraud began in June 2019 when the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) discovered tampering with a mass flow meter on an IPP bunker tanker, leading to the temporary suspension of IPP's Bunker Craft Operator Licence. Dr. Goh resigned in August 2019, and IPP subsequently entered judicial management in September 2019, followed by compulsory liquidation in March 2021.

During liquidation, judicial managers discovered that between June and August 2019, IPP made drawdowns of approximately US$146 million for fraudulent cargo trades (Cargo Drawdowns) and US$10.5 million for bunker trades, none of which were repaid. Crucially, purported receivables from customers for cargo sales were found to be shams. IPP, through its liquidators, sued Dr. Goh, alleging breach of director's duties, specifically breach of his Care Duty (for failing to acquire sufficient knowledge of the cargo trading business and failing to act on "red flags") and breach of his Creditor Duty (as the drawdowns occurred when IPP was balance-sheet insolvent or in a parlous financial state).

High Court's Initial Findings

The High Court Judge initially held Dr. Goh to the standard of a reasonably diligent executive director, given his significant involvement in management. The Judge found that Dr. Goh breached his Care Duty by being ignorant of the cargo trading business. Furthermore, the Judge concluded that Dr. Goh also breached this duty by failing to act reasonably in the face of three purported "red flags": the Mercuria Audit Confirmation Request (ACR), the suspension of IPP's Bunker Craft Operator Licence, and three Maybank Confirmations of indebtedness.

Regarding the Creditor Duty, the Judge determined that it was engaged because IPP was balance-sheet insolvent. A breach was found, even though Dr. Goh was unaware of the cargo trading business or the fraudulent Cargo Drawdowns, as the Judge considered knowledge not to be a prerequisite for breach of this duty.

On causation, the High Court Judge found that Dr. Goh's breach of Care Duty directly caused the full US$146 million loss from the Cargo Drawdowns. The reasoning was based on "common sense," suggesting that the loss would not have occurred if Dr. Goh had been aware of and monitored the cargo trading business. The Judge also asserted that acting on the Mercuria ACR would have prevented the Cargo Drawdowns. A rebuttable presumption of causation was applied for the Creditor Duty breach. Consequently, the High Court awarded US$146,047,099.60 for the Cargo Drawdowns.

Appellate Division's Clarifications and Reversals (2025 SGHCA 7)

The Appellate Division of the High Court (CA) heard Dr. Goh's appeal, delivering a nuanced judgment that provided significant clarifications to Singapore law on director's duties.

• Care Duty:
  
  • Ignorance of Business (Upheld): The CA upheld the High Court's finding that Dr. Goh was ignorant of the cargo trading business, finding no basis for appellate intervention on this factual finding. This aspect of the breach of director's duties remained.
  • "Red Flags" (Overturned): Crucially, the CA disagreed with the High Court Judge, ruling that the three purported "red flags" were not in fact sufficient to put Dr. Goh on inquiry leading to the discovery of the fraud. The Mercuria ACR was deemed an audit confirmation request about debt existence, not delinquency, and auditors/finance management had not raised concerns. The suspension related solely to the bunker business, and expecting a comprehensive financial review to uncover cargo fraud from this event was considered unreasonable. The Maybank Confirmations did not explicitly indicate cargo trades or fraud.
  • Conclusion on Care Duty: While Dr. Goh breached the Care Duty due to his ignorance of the cargo trading business, he did not breach it due to his conduct regarding these specific "red flags".
• Creditor Duty (Overturned): The AD found that Dr. Goh did not breach the Creditor Duty. It clarified that this duty requires subjective intention and is only engaged if the director authorized the relevant transaction. Since Dr. Goh was unaware of and did not authorize the Cargo Drawdowns, he could not have breached this duty.
• Causation (Overturned): This was perhaps the most significant reversal. The CA found that IPP failed to prove causation for the loss related to Dr. Goh's breach of Care Duty (ignorance of cargo trading business). 
  
  • Legal Burden: The CA emphasized that IPP bore the legal burden to prove causation using the "but for" test. This required pleading and proving specific steps Dr. Goh would have taken and how those steps would have detected the fraud and averted the loss. Bare assertions or reliance on "common sense" were deemed insufficient. This represents a significant shift from a more general approach to causation, demanding a detailed hypothetical scenario from the claimant.
  • IPP's Failure: IPP's pleadings and arguments were too broad and lacked specificity on the counterfactual.
  • Fraud Complexity: The AD noted that in a "deep-seated fraud," awareness of the business does not automatically lead to fraud discovery. A director is a "sentinel, but he is not a forensics investigator or a sleuth, unless there are signs that would put him on inquiry". This principle defines the practical limits of a director's duty of supervision in the context of fraud, preventing directors from being unfairly penalized for undetectable misconduct by others. The AD also expressed reservations about the High Court's rejection of Dr. Goh's argument that others involved in the fraud would have stymied his investigations.
• Overall Outcome: The appeal was allowed in part. The High Court judgment was set aside. Dr. Goh was found to have breached the Care Duty due to ignorance of the cargo trading business, but IPP failed to prove causation for the loss. Dr. Goh did not breach the Creditor Duty. Consequently, he was not held liable for the US$146 million in losses.

Assessment: Shaping Director Liability in Singapore

The Goh Jin Hian ruling has provided important clarifications that shape the understanding of director liability in Singapore:

• Clarity on Scope of Duty of Care: The ruling provides welcome clarity for the director community, recognizing that directors, while exercising care and diligence, cannot be held personally liable for every act of misconduct, particularly when committed by others under difficult-to-detect circumstances. It acknowledges the "practical and commercial limits" to a director's ability to scrutinize for and detect deep-seated fraud.¹⁷ This balances the high standard of care with commercial reality.
• Emphasis on Causation: The case significantly reinforces the high bar for proving causation in breach of director's duties claims, especially for duty of care. Companies must specifically demonstrate how a director's proper conduct would have averted the loss, rather than relying on general assumptions. This shifts the burden of proof back to the claimant for duty of care breaches, distinguishing it from the Sim Poh Ping presumption which applies to fiduciary duties breaches. This makes such cases harder to win for the company and offers a more robust defense for directors.
• Refinement of Creditor Duty: The requirement for subjective intention and authorization for a breach of director's duties under the creditor duty provides a more precise and potentially narrower application of this duty, offering some relief to directors who might otherwise be held liable for transactions they were genuinely unaware of.
• Implications for Corporate Governance: While Dr. Goh was still found to have breached his duty of care through ignorance, the case underscores the importance of directors being adequately informed about all aspects of the company's business, even if they are non-executive. This means directors must acquire and maintain sufficient knowledge of the company's core businesses, extending beyond merely reading reports to understanding operational realities and risks. This highlights the need for robust internal controls, clear communication channels, and continuous training to ensure directors have the necessary information to discharge their duties effectively. Directors cannot be "sleeping directors". The ruling serves as a powerful reminder that "ignorance is not a defence" and that boards need to ensure all directors are adequately informed and engaged.

4. How Triangle Legal LLC Can Help

Triangle Legal LLC is a law firm in Singapore and offers comprehensive services to assist companies and directors in upholding their obligations and addressing disputes. The firm's approach views legal counsel as a strategic asset, emphasizing investment in prevention rather than merely reactive services.

Expertise in Corporate and Commercial Litigation

Triangle Legal LLC comprises experienced commercial lawyers specializing in complex corporate disputes, including actions for breach of director's duties, shareholder disputes, and applications under the Companies Act. 

The team is well-versed in navigating the intricacies of civil litigation and can provide robust defense strategies or pursue claims on behalf of companies, shareholders, or creditors. The firm offers comprehensive litigation support, from pre-suit investigations and discovery management to drafting motions and representing clients in the High Court. 

Advising on Director's Duties and Corporate Governance Best Practices

Proactive legal counsel is essential to safeguard against potential breach of director's duties and to ensure robust corporate governance. Triangle Legal LLC advises directors on their statutory and common law obligations, helping them understand the nuances of fiduciary duties, duty of care, and the evolving "creditor duty" in light of landmark cases like Goh Jin Hian.

The firm assists companies in establishing strong corporate governance frameworks, reviewing board structures, roles, and responsibilities, and implementing internal controls and risk management procedures to ensure compliance and ethical conduct. This includes providing guidance on conflict of interest policies and disclosures to mitigate risks.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are the primary fiduciary duties of a director under Singapore law?

A1: Directors in Singapore owe several key fiduciary duties to their company, including the duty to act in good faith and for the best interests of the company, the duty to avoid conflicts of interest, and the duty to use their powers for proper purposes. These duties require directors to prioritize the company's well-being above their own or any other party's interests, ensuring transparency and sound judgment in all decisions.

Q2: How does the Companies Act impact a director's responsibilities in Singapore?

A2: The Companies Act imposes numerous statutory duties on directors, complementing their common law fiduciary duties. These include obligations to maintain accurate accounting records, submit annual financial statements, hold regular meetings, appoint company officers, ensure dividends are paid from profits, and disclose any personal interests in company transactions (e.g. Section 156, Section 157). Non-compliance can lead to severe penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

Q3: What was the key outcome of the Goh Jin Hian High Court case regarding director liability?

A3: The Appellate Division in the Goh Jin Hian case clarified that while a director may breach their duty of care (E.g. through ignorance of the business), a company must specifically prove causation for any losses suffered. The court ruled that directors are "sentinels" but not "forensics investigators" for deep-seated fraud unless clear warning signs exist, overturning a previous finding of liability due to the company's failure to demonstrate how the director's actions would have averted the loss.

Q4: When does the "creditor duty" become relevant for directors in Singapore?

A4: The "creditor duty" is an aspect of a director's overarching duty to act in the company's best interests, which dynamically shifts depending on the company's financial health. When a company is solvent, shareholder interests generally align with the company's. However, as the company approaches or enters insolvency, creditors become the primary economic stakeholders, and their interests must take precedence. The Goh Jin Hian case further clarified that a breach of director's duties under the creditor duty typically requires the director's subjective intention and authorization of the impugned transaction.

Q5: How can a commercial lawyer or company lawyer assist with breach of director's duties issues?

A5: A commercial lawyer or company lawyer can provide crucial assistance by offering proactive legal counsel on corporate governance best practices, helping directors understand and comply with their fiduciary duties and statutory obligations. In cases of alleged breach of director's duties, they can provide robust defense strategies or initiate civil litigation to claim damages on behalf of companies, shareholders, or creditors, guiding clients through complex legal processes and exploring alternative dispute resolution methods.

‍