JUDGMENT

K Anantham JC:

[1] The plaintiff by summons (encl. 4) sought an injunction by way of Mareva against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 13th, 14th, 19th and 21st defendants. The second prayer in the summons is for disclosure by way of affidavit of the whereabouts of the assets of the same defendants. Prayer 3 is for the disclosure of corporate and financial documents of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 21st and 22nd defendants. Prayer 4 is to restrain dealings on the specific property described in the summons as the 'Tiffany'. This injunction is directed against the 3rd, 4th and 20th defendants. I had granted an ex parte injunction in terms of encl. 4 on 16 September 2009 until 29 September 2009 and on that day extended the same until further order. In the meantime, the defendant's filed encl. 13 to set aside the injunction order and/or to vary the same.

[2] The plaintiff's claim arises from two shareholder agreements involving the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and originally two other persons known as Parker and Michael Tiong. Parker and Michael Tiong have withdrawn from the business and consequently not cited as defendants. The two shareholder agreements were intended to create two types of businesses involving plastic recycling processes, namely, Flaking and Staple Fibre. The two shareholder agreements led to the acquisition of two companies in the form of the 21st and 22nd defendants to implement the intention of the shareholders. The 22nd defendant was for the flaking business and the 21st defendant for the staple fibre business.

[3] The two shareholder agreements are substantially similar. The terms of the two agreements, when implemented, would have resulted in the 1st plaintiff holding a majority in terms of the number of board members and the highest percentage of shares among the shareholders of the 21st and 22nd defendants. There was provision for the passing of a circular resolution subject to the same being in writing and unanimously approved by all the directors. The quorum for shareholder meetings is the majority of shareholders present personally or by proxy or by their representatives. This meant that the 1st plaintiff's interest had to be represented at all members' meetings. The 1st defendant was nominated the Managing Director whilst the position of Non-Executive Vice-Chairman was the role assigned under the agreements for the 1st plaintiff.

[4] The plaintiff contends that pursuant to the two shareholder agreements and in all the circumstances of this case, the 1st defendant and the 1st plaintiff are partners and that they accordingly are in a fiduciary relationship and thereby are obliged to act with each other with utmost good faith, mutual trust, and confidence. In truth, the 1st plaintiff did not exercise his right to control the Board of Directors of either the 21st or 22nd defendants and was content to allow the 1st defendant and his nominees to control the Board of Directors, notwithstanding, providing the bulk of the finance required by the two companies in the pursuit of the Flaking and Staple Fibre business. The first time the plaintiff sought to exercise some form of control over the management of the 21st and 22nd defendant was when he appointed Mr. Philip Finlay as the Managing Director of the 22nd defendant in February 2008. Mr. Finlay replaced the 1st defendant as a Managing Director of the 22nd defendant in February 2008. Notwithstanding, the appointment of Mr. Finlay, the 1st defendant continued to have a free hand to negotiate the agreement with Jiang Yin Zhong Rui Non-woven Fabric Machinery Company Limited for the purchase of the Staple Fibre Line and other equipment. The 1st plaintiff also agreed to the 1st defendant's recommendation to appoint the 15th defendant as the contractor for the construction of the factory intended for the manufacturing activities of the 22nd defendant.

[5] A milestone concerning the 22nd defendant is the resolutions passed by the company in April and May 2008. These resolu