Lester Ho, Associate Director of multi-disciplinary law firm Helmsman LLC shared his timely key takeaways on the recent case of Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum when the Appellate Division of the High Court in Singapore overturned the High Court’s finding that Mr Goh’s breach had caused IPP to incur the losses:

The collapse of a company often prompts a search for blame, especially where the downfall stems from deliberate misconduct such as fraud that appears avoidable in hindsight. Unsurprisingly, a company’s directors are frequently perceived as the root of the problem and become prime suspects in the inevitable witch hunt for accountability. The recent case of Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] SGHC(A) 7 is a timely reminder of a director’s duties as well as the legal risks in the event of breach.

The downfall of Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (“IPP”) is well-documented. The Maritime Port Authority of Singapore suspended IPP’s bunker craft operator licence after discovering that the mass flow meter of a bunker tanker chartered by IPP had been tampered with. Concerns raised by IPP’s banks in relation to its business led its non-executive director, Mr Goh Jin Hian, to discover that it was heavily indebted to the banks. It was also discovered that the facilities had been used on sham sale and purchase transactions.

IPP was subsequently placed in compulsory liquidation, and Mr Goh was sued for breach of his director’s duties. It was alleged that the sham transactions could have been prevented had Mr Goh discharged his duties and that he was therefore responsible for IPP’s losses. At first instance, the High Court found that Mr Goh had breached his duty of care and ordered him to compensate IPP for approximately US$146 million in losses (Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Goh Jin Hian [2024] SGHC 178). Among other things, the High Court found that Mr Goh was in breach because he was entirely ignorant of IPP’s cargo trading business.

The Appellate Division of the High Court upheld the finding that Mr Goh had breached his duty for having been unaware of IPP’s cargo trading business. However, it overturned the High Court’s finding that Mr Goh’s breach had caused IPP to incur the losses. The Appellate Division found that IPP failed to prove that Mr Goh would have uncovered the sham transactions even if he had discharged his duty. Accordingly, Mr Goh was absolved of his liability to compensate IPP.

There are two broad takeaways from the decision.

The first takeaway is that every director, both executive and non-executive, is held to a minimum standard of care. This standard requires directors to take reasonable steps to put themselves in a position where they can guide and monitor the management of the company. Put simply, ignorance of a company’s business is no defence, even for non-executive directors that are not involved in everyday operations. Accordingly, although Mr Goh was a non-executive director, the fact that he was unaware that IPP was carrying on the business of cargo trading meant that he was in breach of his duties.

It may be surprising that a director could be entirely unaware of an important part of a company’s business. But the reality is that modern day companies have become commercial behemoths with complex and layered operations that makes it all too easy for directors (especially non-executive directors) to delegate oversight over critical business decisions and lose visibility of what their companies do. It is therefore important for directors, regardless of their formal titles, to ensure that there is a robust chain of reporting and command such that they have sufficient knowledge of the company’s operations to discharge their duties.

The second is that, while the law imposes high standards on directors, it does not demand unrealistic standards. As noted, the Appellate Division accepted that Mr Goh had breached his duties for having been unaware of IPP’s cargo trading business. However, it was not persuaded that, even if Mr Goh had discharged his duties and had been properly informed of IPP’s activities, the sham transactions could have been prevented. IPP was affected by what the Appellate Division considered a “deep-seated fraud” that had gone undetected even by IPP’s auditors. In the circumstances, it was far from clear that Mr Goh could have prevented the loss even if he had discharged his duty.

However, just because the law does not expect directors to be superhuman does mean that directors can afford to be complacent. Directors would still do well to take reasonable and diligent steps to ensure that they have a good grasp of the company’s operations and engage competent professionals (e.g., auditors) to help surface risks that they may otherwise miss. In a sense, Mr Goh avoided liability not because his breach was minor, but because the extent of the fraud perpetrated meant that the gravity of his breach cannot be said to have caused the loss. In other words, a less sophisticated or extensive fraud might have yielded a drastically different outcome – directors should take heed.

A timeline organised list of events preceding the current development of Inter-Pacific Petroleum has been recorded by Manifold Times below:

Related: Singapore: Ex-Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum wins appeal against former company

Related: Singapore: Ex-Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum appeals High Court decision
Related: Singapore: Former auditors of Inter-Pacific Petroleum undergo private oral examination at court
Related: Singapore: Civil trial between Inter-Pacific Petroleum and Dr Goh Jin Hian begins
Related: Former Singapore Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum sued for USD 156 million
Related: Inter-Pacific Petroleum creditors authorised to fund lawsuit against former Director
Related: New Silkroutes under investigation over possible breach of Securities and Futures Act
Related: Judicial Managers considering to take former Singapore Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum to court
Related: Singapore: Inter-Pacific Group receives winding up order from High Court
Related: Singapore: Inter-Pacific Group files for winding up application at High Court
Related: MPA revokes Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd bunker supplier licence
Related: Co-heads of Trade and Commodities Finance for Asia-Pacific leave SocGen
Related: Inter-Pacific Group, Inter-Pacific Petroleum to hold creditors’ meet
Related: NewOcean detains Singapore-flagged bunker tanker “Pacific Energy 28”
Related: SocGen lawsuit against NewOcean Petroleum dropped, party to counterclaim
Related: MPA revokes Inter-Pacific Petroleum bunker craft operator licence
Related: Magnets on MFMs: Trial starts for former bunker clerk of “Consort Justice
Related: First suspect charged over MFM tampering in landmark case
Related: With nearly $180 million of debt, IPP proposes interim judicial management
Related: Inter-Pacific Group, Inter-Pacific Petroleum under judicial management
Related: Magnets on MFMs: “Consort Justice” crew pleads ‘not guilty’ to tampering charge
Related: IPP responds to temporary suspension of bunker craft operator licence
Related: MPA temporarily suspends IPP bunker craft operator licence
Related: Singapore: Bunker Cargo officer, crew face charges over alleged MFM tampering

Photo credit: Helmsman
Published: 13 June, 2025