LITT
Try LITT free
Re Lee Kim Kiat [2007] SGHC 146
The court held that the Official Assignee was entitled to reject a proof of debt where the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim, particularly when the validity of the claim was challenged.
Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng [2007] SGHC 123
Section 133 of the Bankruptcy Act provides a single defence of innocent intention consisting of two limbs (lack of intent to defraud and lack of intent to conceal the state of affairs), both of which must be satisfied for the defence to succeed.
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd v Rasmachayana Sulistyo alias Chang Whe Ming [2004] SGHC 87
The court held that substituted service of a statutory demand by advertisement does not require the advertisement of the entire statutory demand, and that leaving a statutory demand at a forwarding agent's address pursuant to mutual agreement constitutes proper personal service.
Lu Yuan Sheng v Hitachi Credit Singapore Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 118
Substituted service of a statutory demand must comply with the Practice Directions regarding attempts at personal service; failure to do so renders the service ineffective.
Re Ishak Bin Ismail (Ex Parte United Overseas Bank Limited) [2003] SGHC 131
A creditor must ensure that substituted service of a statutory demand is effective in bringing the demand to the debtor's notice, and the court will not order such service if it is aware that the debtor no longer resides at the premises.
Sia Leng Yuen v Ko Chun Shun Johnson [2002] SGHC 55
A statutory demand must accurately specify the nature and value of any security held by the creditor; failure to do so, or providing a zero value without cogent evidence, justifies setting aside the demand.
Sia Leng Yuen v HKR Properties Limited [2001] SGHC 352
The term 'security' in rules 94(5) and 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules refers only to security on the property of the debtor.
Goh Chin Soon v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd [2001] SGHC 265
The court held that the statutory demand was validly issued as there was no underlying security to disclose at the time of issuance, and the plaintiff's cross-claims were not bona fide.
Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited [2001] SGHC 17
A statutory demand will not be set aside under rule 98(2)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules based on a counterclaim or set-off that is not genuine or does not exceed the debt owed.
Re Lim Wee Beng Eddie [2001] SGHC 103
The court will not extend an interim order under the Bankruptcy Act if the proposed voluntary arrangement is not serious and viable, and if the applicant fails to procure a qualified and willing nominee.
Manjit Kaur Monica v Standard Chartered Bank [2000] SGHC 205
The court upheld a statutory demand, ruling that a mortgagee is not obligated to accept a lower offer from a mortgagor when a better market price is available. It emphasized that disputes must be genuine to set aside such demands.
Re Loh Lee Keow and Another [2000] SGHC 196
The court held that 'security' in the context of the Bankruptcy Rules and Act refers to security on the property of the debtor, and does not include security provided by a third party.
Manharlal Trikamdas Mody and another v Sumikin Bussan International (HK) Limited
The court held that statutory rights under ss 76(1)(c) and 105 of the Bankruptcy Act are personal to the Official Assignee and incapable of assignment, and that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a good arguable case for service out of jurisdiction due to material non-disclosure
Lim Poh Yeoh (alias Lim Aster) v TS Ong Construction Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 179
A statutory demand founded on an adjudication determination under the SOPA can be set aside if the debtor has a genuine cross-demand that raises triable issues, as the SOPA's 'pay first, argue later' policy does not override the insolvency regime's rules on cross-claims.