Park Hotel Management Pte. Ltd. (In Liquidation) and others v Law Ching Hung and others

Park Hotel Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and its liquidators, Aw Eng Hai and Kon Yin Tong, sued its former director Law Ching Hung and three companies, Park Hotel Group Management Pte Ltd, Good Movement Holdings Limited and Sg. Inst. Of Hospitality Pte Ltd, in Suit No 364 of 2022. In a decision on liability issued on 6 August 2025, reported as [2025] SGHC 149, the court found that Mr Law had caused the company's viable businesses and assets to be transferred to the defendant companies at a gross undervalue, had caused cash and receivables to be moved to himself or entities he owned or controlled while the company was insolvent or in a parlous state, and had breached his fiduciary duty. The defendant companies were held jointly and severally liable for the assets they received on the bases of knowing receipt, dishonest assistance and unlawful means conspiracy.

The court then took further submissions on remedies and costs. Several reliefs were not contested, but the parties disagreed on pre-judgment interest, discovery to help the plaintiffs elect their remedies, damages for the liquidators' investigation costs, and costs.

1. Whether pre-judgment interest should run at the default rate from when the causes of action arose
2. Whether the plaintiffs should be given discovery to elect between an account of profits and damages
3. Whether the liquidators' costs of investigating the conspiracy were recoverable as damages
4. Whether the defendants should pay indemnity costs and whether a certificate for more than two solicitors should be granted

On interest, the court saw no reason to depart from the default rate. It rejected the argument that a liquidator would only have earned fixed deposit rates: the diverted assets could have paid debts owed to landlords that carried interest above 5.33%, so the default rate was no windfall. Interest runs from the accrual of loss unless the claimant unduly delays, and the liquidators had not. Mr Law's manipulation of the books had also hampered the claim, so interest would not run only from the later amendment.

A claimant need only elect between remedies once it has enough information. No formal election had been made on the Park Hotel Kyoto opportunity, and figures for each hotel management agreement were relevant even though they were sold as a bundle, so discovery was ordered.

Investigation costs are recoverable only if causally linked to the conspiracy. The work claimed would have been done in the ordinary course of the liquidation and litigation, so that claim failed.

Indemnity costs were justified. Before the action Mr Law stripped the company's assets, manipulated accounts and backdated documents; during it he resisted relevant discovery, changed position on insolvency and gave contrived and dishonest evidence. As he controlled the defendant companies and their litigation strategy, all defendants were liable. Rejecting the Calderbank offers was reasonable, as the Cash Payments and Receivables alone exceeded S$15m. The case was not exceptional enough for more than two solicitors.

The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' further claims in part. It ordered Mr Law to pay S$10,134,329.54 and S$18,893,820.22; Mr Law and Park Hotel Group Management to pay S$1,875,552 and S$2,073.70; and Mr Law and Sg. Inst. Of Hospitality to pay S$2,411,206, in each case with any GST imposed. It ordered an account of the profits of Yan Pte Ltd from 1 March 2021 for which Mr Law and Good Movement Holdings are jointly and severally liable, interest at 5.33% per annum from when each cause of action arose, discovery within 14 days, and indemnity costs to be taxed unless agreed. The claim for investigation costs and the application for a certificate for more than two solicitors were dismissed. Time for appeal was ordered to run from this judgment.