American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad and Another and Other Appeals

JudgeLai Kew Chai J
Judgment Date22 October 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGHC 256
Citation[2003] SGHC 256
Date22 October 2003
Published date04 November 2003
Plaintiff CounselKanan Ramesh (Tan Kok Quan & Partnership),Fan Kin Ning and Melvin Tan (WLAW LLC),K Shanker Kumar (Yeo-Leong & Peh LLC)
Docket NumberMagistrate's Court Suit No 24159 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 11 of 2003) Magistrate's Court Suit No 4707 of 1999 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 600001 of 2003) and Magistrate's Court Suit No 37125 of 2002 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 12 of 2003)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterCivil Procedure,Judgments and orders,Enforcement,Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 13(c),Whether in substance same as garnishment,Garnishee orders,Words and Phrases,Whether wages or salary of judgment debtor exempted from garnishment,Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 13,"Writ of seizure and sale"

Three judgment creditors, which are banks operating in Singapore, have filed these three appeals. They raise the common question, whether ‘salaries and wages’ may be garnished by judgment creditors. The Deputy Registrar of the Subordinate Courts, Mr Earnest Lau, refused their applications to garnish the salary of the judgment debtors to satisfy the judgments they had obtained.

2 They appealed to the District Judge, Mr Jeffrey Sim. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeals, the District Judge agreed with the Deputy Registrar and dismissed the appeals.

3 They held that on the proper construction of s 13(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 322 (“SCJA”), it exempts the wages and salaries of a judgment debtor from garnishment. They adopted a purposive interpretation to s 13(c), having concluded that Parliament had always regarded a writ of seizure and sale as a generic term encompassing all modes of seizing the property of a judgment debtor, including the garnishment of his wages or salary. In their view, this was the law before the SCJA was passed in 1969 and is still the law. They have delivered comprehensive judgments in writing and, with respect, they repay careful study for the scope of coverage of the pre-section 13(c) SCJA legal history relating to the process of execution on judgments, in general, and in relation to the writ of seizure and sale and garnishment, in particular, and also for their masterful analysis.

4 Not satisfied with the concurrent rulings, the three banks lodged their appeals to the High Court. Counsel for the three banks made their submissions. The judgment debtors were not represented. For the reasons which follow, I agree with concurrent rulings below.

The proper construction of s 13(c) SCJA

5 I can conveniently start with the Civil Procedure Code 1907 (“CPC 1907”), which came into operation on 1 April 1908: see section 1 thereof. Chapter XXIX of the CPC 1907 dealt with “WRITS OF EXECUTION” generally, under which the first part dealt with the “Writ of Seizure and Sale”. This section described the kinds of property (including debts) which could be seized under a writ of seizure and sale and the exemptions.

6 Section 617 may be properly traced and described as the genesis of section 13 SCJA. Section 617 provided as follows:-

“ 617.-(1) The following property is liable to be seized under a writ of seizure and sale, viz.;-lands, houses, goods, money, Government and bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, promissory notes, Government and Municipal Securities, bonds, or other securities for money, shares in the capital or joint stock or debentures of any public Company or Corporation, debts, and except as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, moveable or immoveable, belonging to the judgment debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power, which he may exercise for his own benefit, and whether the same is held in the name of the judgment debtor, or by other person in trust for him, or on his behalf.

(2) The following property is not liable to seizure under such writ, viz.:-

(b) the wages or salary of the judgment debtor;

…”.

7 So far as the word “writ” in sub-s (2) of s 617 of the Civil Procedure Code 1907 is concerned, three pointers may be noted at this stage. First, it obviously referred to the writ of seizure and sale mentioned in the preceding sub-section. Secondly, the plain and natural English meaning of a “writ” is, in simple, modern terms an order or direction of a court of law. Thirdly, this plain and natural meaning of the word “writ” is consistent with the usage of the word in s 569 of the Civil Procedure Code 1907. That section set out the different “modes” by which judgments and orders might be enforced. A judgment for the recovery of money might be enforced by a writ of seizure and sale: see s 569(1)(i)(a). If it was for delivery of possession of land (later amended to immovable property) the mode was by a writ of possession: see sub-para (ii). For the recovery of money, it would be by a writ of attachment.

8 Section 617(2)(b) of the CPC 1907 was new and prevented wages and salaries from being garnished.

9 The regulation of all civil justice matters in Singapore, then a colony, immediately prior to the coming into operation of the CPC 1907 should now be recalled. They were regulated by the Civil Procedure Ordinance, 1878 (Ordinance 5 of 1878) together with the Courts Ordinance 1878 (Ordinance 3 of 1878) and the Civil Law Ordinance (Ordinance 4 of 1878). The Civil Procedure Ordinance 1878, which came into operation on 1 January 1879, provided for execution of a money judgment by garnishment, that is, by the attachment of personal property (including choses in action) in the hands of a third party.

10 Section 407 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1878 provided as follows:

“407. Where the judgment-debtor is beneficially interested in any moneys, securities or money, goods, chattels or other property or rights of claims whatsoever, in the custody or under the control of or against any other person within the Colony, or where such other person (hereinafter called the Garnishee) is indebted to the defendant, the Sheriff, in executing a writ of seizure and sale, shall seize the same, by giving notice in writing, in the prescribed form, to the garnishee, which notice shall bind the property of the judgment-debtor in the hands of such garnishee, as hereinafter mentioned, in satisfaction of the decree.”

11 In the context of the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1878, I need only consider the decision of Wood, A.C.J. in MPLA Peyna Carpen Chitty v Max. J. D’Souza [1892] 1 SSLR 64. It was succinctly stated in the short judgment as follows: “(o)n the supposition that the wages of the clerk are his sole means of living, I think that the salary of such a clerk is not attachable taking into consideration the provisions of the Ordinance (i.e. the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1878 as to the examination of Judgment Debtors and the power given to order payment of the debt by instalment, provisions which in my judgment point to the policy of the law in not permitting a man to be stripped of all means of livelihood and entirely pauperised.” It was implicitly accepted by the Chief Justice that attachment of a debt was the same as ‘seizure’ of a debt.

12 I now trace the legislative manifestation of ss 617 to 639 of the Civil Procedure Code 1907 which, by 1934, had become a substantial amalgam of substantive law and procedure.

13 Section 617 of the CPC 1907 was consolidated as s 13 of the Courts Ordinance 1934, in which substantive law relating to the courts was enacted. It provided as follows:-

“13.- (1) A judgment of the High Court for the payment of money to any person or into Court, may be enforced by a writ, to be called a writ of seizure and sale, under which all the property, moveable or immoveable, of whatever description, of a judgment debtor may be seized except -

…..

…..

(c) the wages or salary of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Peter Low LLC v Higgins, Danial Patrick
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 Marzo 2018
    ...13 of the SCJA. In this regard, the decisions in American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmand and another and two other appeals [2003] 4 SLR(R) 780 (at [27]) and KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and another [2017] SGHCR 11 (at [13]–[14] and [30]–[31]) suggest that, becaus......
  • KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 Agosto 2017
    ...from the decision of the Singapore High Court in American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad and another and two other appeals [2003] 4 SLR(R) 780 (“Abdul Manaff”), where it was held that the expression “writ of seizure and sale” in s 13 of the SCJA carries a wider meaning than the e......
  • OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 6 Agosto 2004
    ...me to s 13 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) and to American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad [2003] 4 SLR 780. 57 Counsel’s contention is unfounded. The Mareva jurisdiction extends to all assets, whether tangible assets or mere choses in action, provide......
  • Liew Kum Chong v SVM International Trading Pte Ltd and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 Marzo 2020
    ...which came within the ambit of s 13 of the SCJA: In this regard, the decisions in American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad [2003] 4 SLR(R) 780 (at [27]) and KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd [2017] SGHCR 11 (at [13]–[14] and [30]–[31]) suggest that, because the [Rules o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 Diciembre 2003
    ...under conflict of laws and infra, at para 9.87, with regard to ‘Illegality’); and American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad[2003] 4 SLR 780; this is an extremely important decision which holds that s 13(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) exempts the wages ......
  • STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2009, December 2009
    • 1 Diciembre 2009
    ...80; Progress Software Corp (S) Pte Ltd v Central Provident Fund Board[2003] 2 SLR 156; American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad[2003] 4 SLR 780; The “Seaway”[2004] 2 SLR 577; The “Seaway”[2005] 1 SLR 435; Chai Choon Yong v Central Provident Fund Board[2005] 2 SLR 594; JD Ltd v Com......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 Diciembre 2003
    ...alia, the legislative background of the SCJA and applied a purposive interpretation (American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad[2003] 4 SLR 780). Appeals 6.76 In three cases reported in 2003, the Court of Appeal affirmed the test in The Vishva Apurva[1992] 2 SLR 175 that an appellat......
  • SECTION 13 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT AND ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR’S EARNINGS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2004, December 2004
    • 1 Diciembre 2004
    ...of sale and this bar extends to the garnishee process. So held the High Court in American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad[2003] 4 SLR 780. The purpose of this article is to consider the ramifications of this judgment, the difficulties raised by s 13 of the SCJA, and the desirabili......

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