The statutory derivative action under Section 216A of the Singapore Companies Act 1967 only works if there is someone who can use it. A board that has wronged its own company will not sue itself. The Companies Act therefore defines a category of persons — “complainants” — who can step in and apply to court for leave to bring proceedings in the company’s name. The definition is deliberately wide. It covers any member of the company, any director, the Minister in regulated sectors, and — in the court’s discretion — “any other person who is a proper person to make the application.”
This article explains who, exactly, can apply to court for leave to bring a Section 216A derivative action in Singapore. It covers the four statutory categories, the leading cases on each, and the practical situations where complainant status is contested. It is written for business owners, minority shareholders, beneficial owners holding through nominees, family business heirs, and the corporate secretaries and legal advisers who serve them.
The statutory framework
Section 216A(1) of the Companies Act 1967 defines “complainant” for the purposes of the statutory derivative action. The definition has four limbs:
- (a) any member of a company;
- (b) the Minister, in the case of a declared company under Part IX of the Act;
- (c) any other person who, in the discretion of the court, is a proper person to make an application.
(Note: prior to the 2014 Companies Act amendments, the definition included specific reference to directors. Directors are now generally covered under “member” if they hold shares, and under “any other person” if not. In practice, directors regularly bring Section 216A applications.)
Category 1: Members of the company
This is the most common complainant category. The word “member” has its statutory meaning under Section 19(6) of the Companies Act — a person whose name is entered on the register of members.
Important points:
- Holding size does not matter. A 1% shareholder has the same standing under Section 216A as a 49% shareholder. The minority protection is not a function of percentage.
- Share class does not matter. Holders of preference shares, redeemable shares and non-voting shares all qualify as “members”.
- Joint holders can both apply, or the first-named joint holder can act on behalf of the others.
- Membership at the time of the wrong vs at the time of the application. The complainant must be a member at the time of the application. The position of former members is dealt with under category (c) below.
Category 2: Former members
A person whose shares have been transferred, redeemed or extinguished is no longer a “member” and so cannot rely on category (a). However, the Singapore courts have used the “any other person who is a proper person” discretion in category (c) to allow former members to bring derivative actions where:
- The wrong occurred during the period of membership;
- The cessation of membership was caused by, or related to, the wrong (e.g. dilution, forced redemption);
- The former member retains a real interest in the outcome (e.g. they will receive proceeds through a settlement or wind-up); and
- No more suitable complainant is available.
The leading case applying this approach is Carpenter Realtors Pte Ltd v Ong Choon Hwee Allan, where the court allowed an ex-shareholder to bring a derivative action because the cessation of shareholding was the very wrong complained of. The discretion is exercised carefully — former members do not have a right to bring a derivative action but may persuade the court that they are a proper person on the facts.
Category 3: Beneficial owners and nominees
A beneficial owner whose shares are held by a nominee (e.g. shares held through a custodian, a trust, or a family-office holding structure) is not the registered “member”. Can the beneficial owner apply directly?
Singapore courts have generally taken the position that the registered nominee should bring the action — the legal title-holder has standing as a “member”. However, the court has discretion under category (c) to allow the beneficial owner to apply if the nominee refuses, has a conflict of interest, or is otherwise unable to bring the action. The beneficial owner should establish:
- Documentary proof of beneficial ownership (trust deed, declaration of trust, nominee agreement);
- Evidence that the nominee has been asked to bring the action and refused or is unable to; and
- That the beneficial owner has a genuine interest in the outcome.
Category 4: Directors
Directors who are also members qualify under category (a). Directors who are not members (e.g. independent or non-executive directors with no shareholding) typically apply under category (c) as “proper persons”. The Singapore courts have accepted that a director who is concerned about wrongdoing within the company has a genuine standing to bring a derivative action, particularly when the director has been outvoted at board level by the majority.
Common scenarios where a director acts as complainant:
- An independent director sees evidence of misappropriation by an executive director and the majority refuses to investigate.
- A nominee director appointed by a minority investor sees the majority board acting in breach and the investor is structured so the director, not the investor, has the right to enforce.
- A newly appointed director discovers historical wrongs by the previous board and the company itself is unwilling to pursue.
For more on director duties generally, see our piece on the resident director requirement.
Category 5: Creditors and other “proper persons”
Creditors of a Singapore company are not members and have generally been refused standing under Section 216A. The Singapore courts have held that the proper avenue for creditors is winding up under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, after which a liquidator can bring claims for the company. We covered the creditor-petition route in Effect of a Winding Up Order on Pending Litigation.
Other “proper persons” who have been accepted by courts in narrow circumstances include:
- Trustees of a deceased shareholder’s estate where the shares have not yet been transmitted to the heirs;
- Receivers and managers appointed over a shareholder’s interest;
- Liquidators of a corporate shareholder.
The good faith requirement applies to all complainants
Section 216A(3) requires the court to be satisfied that the complainant is acting in good faith. The good faith inquiry is the same regardless of which complainant category applies. The court will look at:
- The complainant’s motive. Is the derivative action being used as leverage in a personal dispute? Is the complainant pursuing a vendetta?
- The complainant’s relationship to the alleged wrong. Are they genuinely concerned about the company’s interests, or are they using the company’s cause of action for personal advantage?
- The conduct of the complainant. Have they themselves been involved in the wrong, or are they coming to court with clean hands?
A complainant who clears the standing test under one of the categories above may still be refused leave if they cannot pass the good faith test.
Documents required to establish complainant status
| Complainant type | Documents to file |
|---|---|
| Current member | Extract of register of members; share certificate; ACRA Bizfile showing current shareholding |
| Former member | Historical share certificate; share transfer/redemption documentation; explanation of how membership ceased |
| Beneficial owner via nominee | Declaration of trust or nominee agreement; correspondence with nominee asking them to bring the action |
| Director (non-shareholder) | Latest ACRA Bizfile showing directorship; appointment letter and any nominee director agreement |
| Trustee of deceased estate | Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration; original share certificates of deceased |
| Liquidator of corporate shareholder | Court order appointing liquidator; ACRA records showing the corporate shareholder’s position |
Timeline and costs
| Stage | Typical timeline | Indicative legal costs |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-action — verifying standing | 2–4 weeks | S$5,000–S$15,000 |
| 14-day notice to directors | 2–4 weeks (including drafting) | S$5,000–S$10,000 |
| Originating application + supporting affidavit | 1–2 months | S$25,000–S$60,000 |
| Court hearing on leave | 3–6 months from filing | S$30,000–S$80,000 (depending on whether contested) |
| Total for leave stage | 5–10 months | S$65,000–S$165,000 |
Costs orders are at the court’s discretion under Section 216A(5). The court may order the company to indemnify the complainant for past and future costs — a critical feature that makes derivative actions financially feasible.
What happens after the order — practical next steps
Once the court grants leave under Section 216A, the substantive action proceeds in the name of the company. The complainant’s lawyers conduct the litigation. The company’s directors and majority shareholders may participate as defendants (if they are the wrongdoers) or as witnesses. The company itself is the named plaintiff but is functionally a passive party — directed by the court order and the complainant.
Settlement of the derivative action requires court approval (Section 216A(5)). This is intended to prevent the complainant from agreeing to a settlement that benefits them personally (e.g. a side payment) at the expense of the company.
FAQ
Q: How small a shareholding can apply for leave?
There is no minimum shareholding under Section 216A. A 0.1% shareholder has the same standing as a 49% shareholder.
Q: Must I have been a shareholder when the wrong was committed?
For category (a) (current member), no — you only need to be a member at the time of the application. However, holding shares acquired after the wrong with knowledge of the wrong can affect the good faith inquiry.
Q: Can a foreign company that holds shares as a member apply?
Yes. There is no nationality or domicile restriction on complainants. A foreign corporate shareholder of a Singapore company has standing under category (a).
Q: Can multiple shareholders bring a joint Section 216A application?
Yes — multiple members can act as joint complainants. This is common where a minority block (each individually too small to bear the litigation cost) wishes to act collectively.
Q: Is Section 216A available against directors of a foreign company with a Singapore subsidiary?
No — Section 216A applies to Singapore-incorporated companies. A claim against directors of a foreign holding company would proceed in that company’s jurisdiction.
Q: Can a Section 216A applicant also bring a personal action under Section 216 (oppression)?
Yes — and the two are often combined. The derivative action recovers for the company; the oppression action delivers personal remedies to the shareholder. Combining them allows both the company’s loss and the shareholder’s loss to be addressed in one set of proceedings.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork — ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
📧 Email: [email protected]
📱 Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
— The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services