Fresh election due for S’pore’s biggest motor traders’ group, as appeal court voids 2024 polls
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
The appellate division of the High Court on Nov 11 dismissed an appeal by Singapore Vehicle Traders Association president Neo Tiam Ting (above).
PHOTO: ST FILE
Follow topic:
- Singapore Vehicle Traders Association (SVTA) can now hold a new election after the High Court's appellate division invalidated the May and June 2024 Exco elections.
- The court affirmed the "wide view" of voting rights, allowing any authorised representative to vote, deeming the May 2024 election invalid.
- The 26th Exco remains in office and can organise a fresh election, and the court criticised both parties' handling of the dispute.
AI generated
SINGAPORE – The Republic’s largest motor traders’ association will have to hold a fresh election, after the appellate division of the High Court ruled that the two polls held in 2024 to elect the group’s next executive committee (exco) were invalid.
In its judgment released on Nov 11, the court dismissed an appeal by Singapore Vehicle Traders Association (SVTA) president Neo Tiam Ting, upholding an earlier High Court decision
The appellate judges ordered that each party bear its own legal costs, overturning the earlier cost orders against Mr Neo.
The decision means that SVTA’s 26th exco, whose two-year term began in 2022, remains in office and is authorised to conduct a new, properly convened election for the next term.
SVTA, a collective of nearly 400 second-hand motor vehicle traders, was set up in 1972. Mr Neo was elected president of SVTA in 2022
The association took Mr Neo to court in 2024. Their quarrel stemmed from their differing views about who SVTA members may appoint as representatives to vote at a general meeting and for an exco.
SVTA had argued that members must be represented by a director or partner of the company or firm. The High Court judge called this the “narrow view”.
Mr Neo’s view was that members may be represented by any person, regardless of whether he is a director or partner. The High Court judge called this the “wide view”.
At the annual general meeting (AGM) on May 6, 2024, despite Mr Neo’s objections, SVTA’s members voted in favour of the narrow view, and began to cast their votes for the next exco.
Mr Neo then suspended the AGM. This was disregarded by the exco, who named 19 candidates as members of the new exco later that evening.
Mr Neo convened another AGM on June 6, 2024, to vote for an exco in accordance with the wide view.
The group elected in May then went to court, arguing that Mr Neo had no power to call another AGM or hold a second election.
A High Court judge ruled both elections to be null and void.
In the latest judgment, Justice Woo Bih Li, Justice Debbie Ong and Justice See Kee Oon of the appellate division agreed that both elections were invalid, but for slightly different reasons.
In its judgment on Nov 11, the appellate division said the May election was invalid as it was conducted in accordance with the narrow view, which was in breach of the association’s Constitution.
It took issue with the High Court judge’s finding that the results of the May election were null and void because the vote carried on even after Mr Neo had suspended the AGM and left the meeting.
The judges who heard the appeal said Mr Neo should have allowed members to vote on an adjournment, rather than take a unilateral decision.
They described Mr Neo’s adjournment as an attempt “to get his way”, or to have the election conducted along the wide view.
Since the May meeting had not been validly adjourned, Mr Neo also lacked the power to reconvene the AGM on June 6. The June election, the judges said, was therefore invalid as well.
With both the May and June 2024 elections voided, the court said the 26th exco remains in office under Article 21 of SVTA’s Constitution, which states that an outgoing committee continues its duties until a new one is properly elected.
That means the current office-holders – many of whom also served on the disputed May exco – can now organise a fresh election for the 27th term, this time using the wide view.
During the hearing, lawyers told the court that some members had already tried to hold another election in June 2025, but that vote is also being disputed.
The court criticised both sides for mishandling the dispute and focusing too narrowly on the June 2024 election instead of resolving all key issues, including the validity of the May election. “This was despite clear prompting by the judge to put all of the issues before him,” the appellate judges said.
The judges said the legal tussle had been poorly handled on both sides. “This entire case was not well managed and... (the) actions by both parties contributed to the ongoing impasse,” they said.
Mr Neo told The Straits Times that he feels disappointed by the judgment. “I will be consulting my lawyer on the implications of the judgment (and) the next steps to take in the interest of the association,” he said.
ST has contacted SVTA for comment.
