Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd

JudgeLee Seiu Kin J
Judgment Date06 January 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 6
Citation[2010] SGHC 6
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Published date12 January 2010
Docket NumberOriginating Summons Bankruptcy No 29 of 2009 (Registrar’s Appeal No 299 of 2009)
Plaintiff CounselNg Soon Kai and Mario Tjong (Ng Chong & Hue LLC)
Defendant CounselKelvin Tan Teck San and Natasha Nur Bte Sulaiman (Drew & Napier LLC)
Subject Mattercredit and security,money and moneylenders
Hearing Date25 August 2009
Lee Seiu Kin J:

In this action, the plaintiff applied to set aside the statutory demand for the sum of $10.5m served on him by the defendant on 18 April 2009 (“the SD”). After hearing counsel for the parties on 7 August 2009, the assistant registrar granted the application and set aside the SD on the ground that the debt was disputed on substantial grounds, specifically, that there is a triable issue as to whether the defendant was a moneylender under the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). The defendant appealed before me in registrar’s appeal no 299 of 2009 and on 25 August 2009, I allowed the appeal and quashed the assistant registrar’s order setting aside the SD. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal and I now give the grounds for my decision.

The plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the defendant had given the plaintiff a loan of $10m. The plaintiff’s position was simply that when the loan was made, the defendant was a moneylender within the meaning of the Act and as the defendant had not taken out a licence under s 5 thereof, the loan contracts were not enforceable pursuant to s 15. The question is whether there is any triable issue as to whether the defendant is a moneylender under the Act.

Section 2 of the Act defines a moneylender as follows:

"moneylender" includes every person whose business is that of moneylending or who carries on or advertises or announces himself or holds himself out in any way as carrying on that business whether or not that person also possesses or earns property or money derived from sources other than the lending of money and whether or not that person carries on the business as a principal or as an agent but does not include — any body corporate, incorporated or empowered by a special Act of Parliament or by any other Act to lend money in accordance with that Act; any society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act; any person bona fide carrying on the business of banking or insurance or bona fide carrying on any business not having for its primary object the lending of money in the course of which and for the purposes whereof he lends money; any pawnbroker licensed under the provisions of any written law in force in Singapore relating to the licensing of pawnbrokers; any finance company licensed under the Finance Companies Act; any person licensed under the Securities and Futures Act 2001; and any merchant bank which is an approved financial institution for the purposes of section 28 of the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap. 186)

Under s 3 of the Act, any person – other than one falling within paras (a) to (g) of the definition of “moneylender” – “who lends a sum of money in consideration of a larger sum being repaid shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to be a moneylender”. As the loan provided for payment of interest of 20%, amounting to $500,000, the presumption was invoked and the burden fell on the defendant to rebut it.

In his affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant, Nai Song Kiat (“Nai”), a director of the defendant, deposed as follows. The defendant was an investment holding company which engaged in oil and other energy trading business, and it also invested in petroleum storage facilities. Nai was familiar with the plaintiff in business circles and in September 2008, the plaintiff approached him for a loan of $10m from the defendant. The plaintiff had been badly affected by the drastic fall in the stock market and the money was to enable him to pay some of his creditors. Following negotiations over security to be provided for the loan, the parties entered into a loan agreement on 22 September 2008 and a supplemental agreement on 24 September 2008, pursuant to which the plaintiff received $10m from the defendant. The loan contemplated repayment by 18 December 2008 (or such other date as parties may agree) along with interest of $500,000. Any late payment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Real Estate Consortium Pte Ltd v
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 Diciembre 2010
    ...of $3m, not least the defendants' admissions that they did not have the funds for repayment: at [83] to [89]. Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd [2010] SGHC 6 (refd) Ang Eng Thong v Lee Kiam Hong [1998] SGHC 64 (refd) Ang Sin Hock v Khoo Eng Lim [2010] 3 SLR 179 (refd) Binder v Alachouzos [1972] 2 ......
  • Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (HongKong) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 19 Mayo 2014
    ...of an “excluded moneylender” was introduced in 2008. Ang J’s approach was followed by Lee Seiu Kin J in Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd [2010] SGHC 6 at [4] and more recently by Tan Siong Thye JC in Lena Leowardi v Yeap Cheen Soo [2014] SGHC 44 at [51]. Apart from these cases, there is a dearth ......
  • Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd v Sheagar s/o T M Veloo
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 Octubre 2013
    ...with the finding that the plaintiff was not carrying on the business of moneylending: at [72] to [78] . Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd [2010] SGHC 6 (folld) China Merchants Bank v Minvest International Ltd [2001] HKCU 982 (folld) Chng Bee Kheng v Chng Eng Chye [2013] 2 SLR 715 (folld) Chow Wun ......
  • Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (HongKong) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 19 Mayo 2014
    ...of an “excluded moneylender” was introduced in 2008. Ang J’s approach was followed by Lee Seiu Kin J in Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd [2010] SGHC 6 at [4] and more recently by Tan Siong Thye JC in Lena Leowardi v Yeap Cheen Soo [2014] SGHC 44 at [51]. Apart from these cases, there is a dearth ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Insolvency Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 Diciembre 2010
    ...also applied to set aside another statutory demand issued by another creditor, Orion Oil Ltd. The judgment in Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd [2010] SGHC 6 (‘Orion Oil’) was also delivered by Lee Seiu Kin J. In Orion Oil, the debtor applied to set aside a statutory demand for $10.5m that the cre......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT