A matter of commercial judgment: Challenging the decisions of judicial manager under Singapore law: Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co, Ltd v HTL International Holdings Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 11
Singapore Academy of Law Practitioner, Vol: 0, Page: 1-20
2022
- 14Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage14
- Abstract Views14
Artifact Description
This note comments on the recent Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co, Lloyd v HTL International Holdings Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 1141, where the Court of Appeal affirmed the applicable test for determining whether a judicial manager’s exercise of discretion may be challenged on the basis of “unfairness” under s 227R of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (now s 115 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (Act 40 of 2018)). This note observes that the decision presented a welcome clarification in this area on the law of insolvency. In addition, this note compares this decision with the UK administration regime to understand the legal basis for bringing a challenge against the judicial managers’ exercise of discretion premised on “unfairness”. This note then concludes the discussion by highlighting two issues that the Singapore courts may wish to further explore, should the occasion arise, namely: (a) the party that bears the burden of proof; and (b) the threshold for bringing a successful challenge.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know