Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 MAY 2017

Re-Examining Purpose Clauses And Quistclose Trusts

In CCM Industrial Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Chan Pui Yee [2016] SGHC 231 (CCM Industrial), the liquidators of CCM Industrial Pte Ltd (the Company) brought a claim for the recovery of certain payments...

SingaporeFinance and Banking

Introduction

In CCM Industrial Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Chan Pui Yee [2016] SGHC 231 (CCM Industrial), the liquidators of CCM Industrial Pte Ltd (the Company) brought a claim for the recovery of certain payments (the Payments) to the defendant, Madam Chan Pui Yee, in the lead up to the Company's liquidation. The defendant attempted a defence which was discussed by the court in three paragraphs and although dismissed as "an afterthought and a non-starter", such defence may have practical implications which might affect unsecured lenders and borrowers and thus, may impact on the purpose clauses in lending agreements.

Quistclose trust

The Quistclose trust is essentially a principle that is derived from the decision in Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments [1970] AC 567 – namely, that moneys advanced by a lender to a borrower for a specific purpose were impressed with a trust for that purpose and does not become part of the borrower's estate. The lender is

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from