Journal of Business Law, pp. 128 – 138, 2016
Posted: 1 Mar 2016
Date Written: 2016
Do shareholders have reserve or residual powers of management when the board is unable or unwilling to act? In Chan Siew Lee v TYC Investment Pte Ltd  5 SLR 409, the Singapore Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative. In so doing, the court employed a contractarian approach, rationalising the power as one that is conferred on shareholders by a term implied in the company’s constitution on the basis of necessity or business efficacy. But a closer review will demonstrate that the court’s analysis, despite its overt reliance on contractual principles, is ultimately of a hybrid nature that takes on board both contractual as well as public policy concerns. This approach aptly reflects the complex nature of the company’s internal workings and warns against a reductionist approach that tackles the issue from a monolithic (contractual) perspective.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Lee, Pey-Woan, Shareholders' Reserve Power: Implied Terms & Public Policy (2016). Journal of Business Law, pp. 128 – 138, 2016; Singapore Management University School of Law Research Paper No. 5/2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2714691