[2021] SGHC 90

Wei Fengpin v Low Tuck Loong Raymond [2021] SGHC 90
Apple in March 2016. 133 Moreover, prior to LSW’s formation, SWA was
already deploying the LIM technology to manufacture Parts to supply to the
Company, and it could continue to do so for the Company to supply to its
customers such as Apple. 134 Hence, LSW’s set-up was unnecessary except to
enable it to supply Parts using the LIM technology, and thus divert that
opportunity from the Company to it. This is even more egregious bearing in
mind that LSW was set up and maintained with the Company’s funding (see
[102] above).
105 By incorporating LSW, the Defendants did not wish for Wei (through
his shareholding in the Company) to benefit from the above opportunity. Whilst
they claimed that LSW was formed merely as a supplier to the Company and
SWP (as an alternative to the Wei-related Suppliers) for the Company to supply
Parts to Apple, and not for LSW to supply Parts to other entities directly, 135 this
was not true. LSW sells Parts to Sei Woo Rubber Malaysia Sdn Bhd and Sei
Woo Polymer Technologies Sdn Bhd, which in turn serves other end customers.
I find Sim’s explanation in court that Apple’s business “centres around in
China” and that it would be easier for an entity in Asia (LSW) to support it, was
an afterthought. Low admitted that the Company could change its business
model to undertake LSW’s operations and manufacture the Parts. 136
106 It is clear from the Defendants’ conduct that the Company’s
contributions and loans to LSW were intended to benefit LSW and not the
Company. Pertinently, there was no intention for the Company to recoup the
133
4AB 1297; 14/10/20 NE 26–28, 30–31; Wei’s AEIC at [100] and Tab 30.
134
23/9/20 NE 5–6; 14/10/20 NE 49.
135
Low’s AEIC at [182]; Sim’s AEIC at [178]; 28/9/20 NE 40, 42; 14/10/20 NE 39.
136
30/9/20 NE 139–140; 14/10/20 NE 50–51.
46