By Selina Lum

HE DID not provide any funding for the art companies started by his ex-lover. His was just a peripheral role, a partner only in name.

But Mr Lim Chee Twang, 40, can now lay claim to 40 per cent of the shares in his name in four of the five companies of which he and Ms Helina Chan, 46, were shareholders.

However, it was not a total victory for Mr Lim, who had sued Ms Chan in the High Court to order her to buy over his shares in the companies. It was ruled that Mr Lim will get nothing out of the fifth company.

Ms Chan had made an offer in June but Mr Lim refused, asserting that he was also entitled to a 40 per cent share of the fifth company when he holds only 0.001 per cent of it.

Judicial Commissioner Quentin Loh, in a 111-page judgment released yesterday, ruled that Mr Lim was never a real partner in the companies founded by Ms Chan.

The shares that he held had been given to him by her as gifts, so while he never paid for them, he remained a shareholder. Mr Lim claimed that the former couple's 60-40 split was agreed on in 2003.

Mr Lim had sued Ms Chan, claiming that she had mismanaged the company and oppressed his rights as a minority shareholder.

The Hong Kong-born Ms Chan was one of the two winners of the Singapore Tourism Board's New Tourism Entrepreneur Award in 2005 for bringing renowned art exhibits to Singapore. The iPreciation companies are in the business of sourcing and selling artwork.

Mr Lim claims that he was excluded from taking part in the management of the companies and wrongfully dismissed as executive director last year. He accused her of misappropriating more than $8 million, and alleged that she refused to pay dividends when the companies had a 'cash hoard' of $10 million.

Ms Chan maintains that she was the one who founded the business and Mr Lim was not a real partner. She had given him a stake in the business only on account of their relationship.

The judge agreed with her.

'I have no doubt in my mind that Ms Chan was the driving force behind the art business of the companies,' he said.

He noted that she had the knowledge, the expertise, the contacts and the passion. She also provided all the capital.

On the other hand, Mr Lim's role in the business was 'peripheral'. The judge found that Ms Chan was creating work for Mr Lim; he accepted her testimony that she did not want him to feel like her 'toy boy'.

The couple met in late 1997 and began living together in 1999. That same year, she decided to start an art business.

She lent him money to start an IT company, supported his various ventures, paid for his living expenses and bills, and gave him a credit card.

They ended their relationship in 2005 but continued to live under the same roof to give his parents the impression that he was doing well.

But last year, their relationship broke down completely when she suspected him of having a relationship with a woman in Taiwan.

The judge found that the withdrawals of $8 million were a knee-jerk reaction to their quarrels. This did not amount to minority oppression; neither did the alleged failure to pay dividends.

However, he found that Ms Chan's actions, among them backdating some agreements, amounted to minority oppression and on that basis, a buyout of Mr Lim's shares was warranted.

The court has ordered Mr Lim's shares to be valued by an independent valuer.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.