THREATS AND DEMANDS According to the older man, from 2016, his son made a series of threats and demands against him for his money and assets. The relationship deteriorated significantly by March 2018, when the father was in the midst of closing the company’s supermarket operations. He offered his son S$3 million to buy out his 8 per cent of shares and hoped his son would obtain the necessary documents for the closure. But his son asked for S$15 million instead to exit the company. This was rejected by his father.
One such discussion was on Dec 21, 2015, which was captured on video. The son used it to substantiate his case. By 2017, the supermarket business ceased to be viable, and on May 25, 2018, the father and other shareholders of the company unanimously resolved to end the supermarket operations.
He said he intended to distribute his assets to his children, including his son, in the future. The court heard that the son had asked his father to put matters into writing, but the older man said he thought it was unnecessary and that he was simply expressing his plans for the future and did not intend to create any legally binding agreement.
“The defendant says he did not receive any resignation letter from the plaintiff and did not receive any indication that the plaintiff wished to resign.” According to the father, he decided in 2012 that his children should play a larger role in the company, and appointed his daughter and his son as directors of the company at the same time.
But he claimed he turned it down when the father verbally offered him another 60 per cent shares in the company and 60 per cent of the properties – something the older man disputes. “On the other hand, the defendant (father) denies having ever made such an offer to the plaintiff or having entered into the alleged oral agreement with the plaintiff,” Justice Hoo said in her judgment.
According to the son, he was headhunted by a Malaysian company for the position of CEO, and was offered an annual remuneration of between RM900,000 (S$272,000) and RM1.2 million.
In 2003, the property in Tampines was bought by one of the father’s companies. The son told the court he was appointed CEO in 2004, and he claimed that the business boomed under him. The defendant, however, said his son was “not substantively involved” in setting up the company, and that he saw it as a family business and wanted his five children to be involved in it. His son only started working in the company in 2003 after getting his master’s degree. In 2004, the father agreed to make his son CEO as he “wanted to groom” his son to take over.
In 2003, the property in Tampines was bought by one of the father’s companies. The son told the court he was appointed CEO in 2004, and he claimed that the business boomed under him. The defendant, however, said his son was “not substantively involved” in setting up the company, and that he saw it as a family business and wanted his five children to be involved in it. His son only started working in the company in 2003 after getting his master’s degree. In 2004, the father agreed to make his son CEO as he “wanted to groom” his son to take over.
The company was set up in 1999 by the father, who owns 85 per cent of the supermarket business. His son, Mr Kwek Hong Lim, owned 8 per cent. The remaining 7 per cent was split between the defendant’s wife (5 per cent) and his daughter (2 per cent).
She added that the younger man, who has a master’s degree and was an experienced businessman, never put the agreement into writing. “Although he says he asked the defendant many times to put the agreement into writing, those were all verbal requests,” said the judge. “Even if the defendant had refused to do so, the plaintiff could have followed up with a written request. There was none.”