Seaspan Agencies Pte Ltd (“the plaintiff”) against Chin Siew Seng (“Chin”) for breach of director's duties by allegedly (1) misappropriating payment of commissions due to the plaintiff and certain business opportunities to his own company and (2) obtaining payment of commissions by the plaintiff to a third party without the knowledge of the other directors.FactsIn 1991, Quah Hun Kok ("Quah"), Chin and two others founded the plaintiff (a shipping agency business which required it to act as an agent for shipowners to meet the needs of ships and crew when they called at Singapore and for which the plaintiff received shipping fees). 'agency) as well as Seaspan Chartering. At the end of 2003, Seaspan Chartering (a shipbroking business which required the plaintiff to act as a broker and arrange meetings between shipowners, charterers and/or cargo owners for which the plaintiff received a commission) ceased operations and Chin transferred the business to the plaintiff with the arrival of Joanne Ho Syn Ngan (“Ho”) and Leong Mui Ling (“Leong”). During the second half of 2005, Quah noticed that transactions managed by Chin in the shipping brokerage business had led to high "address fee" payments. For each shipping brokerage transaction, the applicant would receive a commission from the shipowner or carrier. Among the commissions received, the accounts reveal that the complainant had in turn paid Addressing Commissions to certain third parties. On 13 October 2005, Chin incorporated Seaspan Singapore to carry on the shipping brokerage business, with Ho and Leong joining. Legal Issues (a) Whether Chin breached his duties as a director by diverting the commission due to the plaintiff and the shipping brokerage business to Seaspan. Singapore?(b) ...... middle of paper ......ff the funds to pay the third party, which implies a failure to act honestly. By failing to reveal the identity of the third party and having entered into a confidentiality agreement with Martin Charles, Chin's actions cannot be said to have acted in the best interests of the plaintiff. Therefore, there was a breach of the Director's duties in securing payment of the address fees to Martin Charles and he was required to compensate the plaintiff in the sum of $353,501.95. Lawnet.com.sg.ezp1.lib.sp.edu.sg, (2014). Connection SPICE - ELISER - Library - Singapore Polytechnic. [online] Available at: http://www.lawnet.com.sg.ezp1.lib.sp.edu.sg/lrweb/search.do?subaction=lrLp2ViewCaseDetail&catCd=null&ncit=[2010]%20SGHC%2038&formattedQuery=% 28breach %3CAND%3Edirector%27s%3CAND%3Eduties%29+%3CAND%3E+%28Priority+%3D+%22Y%22%29+&lrPortletId=lp2cm&catDesc=Judgments#p1_2 [Accessed May 19. 2014].