LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Trustee of the Estate of Ong Thiam Huat v Chan Hock Seng [2004] SGHC 232

A plaintiff in a negligence claim against a liquidator must prove that they suffered actual loss. Where the plaintiff's own evidence contradicts the existence of the debt allegedly lost, the claim fails.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Velstra Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Dexia Bank NV (formerly known as Artesia Banking Corp NV) [2004] SGHC 23

A simple payment without more can be a 'transaction' under s 98 of the Bankruptcy Act, but it requires an element of intention on the part of the parties to transact with each other.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Lee Kiang Leng Stanley v Lee Han Chew (trading as Joe Li Electrical Supplies) [2004] SGHC 151

The court held that s 64(1) of the Bankruptcy Act is not limited to instances of defaults by a petitioner and allows the court to order security for part or all of a debt.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Re Kotjo Johanes Budisutrisno, ex parte International Factors Leasing Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 133

The court has the power to allow amendments to a bankruptcy petition at any time under s 13 of the Bankruptcy Act, and r 102(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules does not operate as a time bar for such amendments.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Liquidator of W&P Piling Pte Ltd v Chew Yin What and Others [2004] SGHC 108

In Liquidator of W&P Piling Pte Ltd v Chew Yin What and Others, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Insolvency Law — Winding up.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Re Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin, ex parte Indra Krishnan (No 2) [2004] SGHC 106

The court held that a bankruptcy order should not be discharged where the administration of the bankrupt's assets is incomplete and the bankrupt has failed to cooperate with the Official Assignee.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Re Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 43

In Re Lion City Holdings Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 43, the High Court dismissed an application to set aside an examination order under section 285 of the Companies Act, ruling that non-disclosure of a protective writ did not invalidate the order as it was not intended to mislead the court.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Velstra Pte Ltd v Mercator & Noordstar NV [2003] SGHC 35

A payment made by an insolvent company to a third party without consideration or for significantly less value constitutes a transaction at an undervalue under the Bankruptcy Act, and the court has no discretion to deny the liquidator's application for recovery once the statutory

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

United Overseas Bank Limited v Victor F A Fernandez [2003] SGHC 246

The court held that s 65(3) of the Bankruptcy Act refers to contingent liabilities, not contingent assets, and that a debtor cannot rebut the presumption of inability to pay debts under s 62 of the Act by mere assertions of future assets.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ishak bin Ismail [2003] SGHC 170

A creditor must take all reasonable steps to bring a statutory demand to a debtor's attention, and substituted service must be the most effective means of doing so.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Soh Lai Chan (mw) and Another v Kuah Peng Hock and Another [2003] SGHC 144

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the transfer of shares was a legitimate family asset distribution exercise. It ruled there was no intent to defraud creditors or deprive the plaintiff of her interest in matrimonial assets.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Rafiq Jumabhoy v Scotts Investments (Singapore) Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) [2003] SGHC 119

The court has jurisdiction to grant leave retrospectively under s 262(3) of the Companies Act for a party to commence or continue an action against a company in compulsory liquidation.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Show Theatres Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Shaw Theatres Pte Ltd and another application [2002] SGHC 61

Case Details * Citation: [2002] SGHC 61 * Case Number: CWU 319/2000, SIC 601418/2001, 601420/2001 * Decision Date: 28 March 2002 * Court: High Court of Singapore * Coram: Tan Lee Meng J * Judgment

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Delta Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd v Wiseco Trading Pte Ltd and Others [2002] SGHC 44

A conspiracy by unlawful means requires proof of a combination to commit an unlawful act with the intention of injuring the plaintiff. Section 73B(1) CLPA requires proof of intent to defraud creditors.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Mah Wand Hew v Ong Yew Huat & Another [2002] SGHC 281

The court held that the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company, not the Guangzhou Hotel Equatorial, and thus entitled to claim outstanding salary and retrenchment benefits from the defendant company in liquidation.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

C & K Credit Pte Ltd v Lee Chin Kwee Kalvin [2002] SGHC 245

The service of a statutory demand does not commence bankruptcy proceedings, and a notice of assignment can be served simultaneously with it. However, a statutory demand must properly account for deductions from proceeds of sale to be valid.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Soh Gim Chuan (private trustee of the estate of Goh Poh Choo in bankruptcy) v Koh Hai Keong and Another [2002] SGHC 130

The court held that solicitors holding client money in their client account are 'associates' of the client under s 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Act. However, the presumption of unfair preference under s 99(5) was rebutted as the legal fees were genuine and not excessive, and the paym

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Wong Kwei Cheong v ABN-AMRO Bank NV [2002] SGHC 111

The court held that a statutory demand must be served in accordance with the prescribed manner under the Bankruptcy Rules, and failure to do so cannot be cured under s 158(1) of the Bankruptcy Act as a mere irregularity.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Toh Khim Eak v United Overseas Bank Limited and Another [2001] SGHC 6

A joint letter issued by two or more creditors to demand different debts owed to each of them is not a valid statutory demand under s 62 of the Bankruptcy Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Re Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [2001] SGHC 46

A consent order is binding until it is set aside, and the court will only intervene in bankruptcy proceedings if the order is used as an engine of oppression against a debtor who is not unable to pay his debts.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Sia Leng Yuen v HKR Properties Ltd [2001] SGHC 331

The term 'security' in rr 94(5) and 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules refers only to security on the property of the debtor, not security provided by a third party.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Re Goh Chin Soon [2001] SGHC 264

The court has discretion under s 65(4) of the Bankruptcy Act to make a bankruptcy order if the debtor's challenge to the judgment debt or statutory demand is not bona fide or is doomed to fail.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Official Assignee [2001] SGHC 184

The Official Assignee, when acting as a litigant in an action at law, is liable for costs in the same manner as any other litigant.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read