Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeLee Seiu Kin JC
Judgment Date30 January 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] SGHC 17
Citation[2001] SGHC 17
Published date14 March 2013
Plaintiff CounselAnand Thiagarajan and Netto (Anand T & Co)
Defendant CounselLee Eng Beng and Melissa Lee (Rajah & Tann)


Grounds of Decision

1 On 12 September 2000 the Defendants ("the Bank") issued a statutory demand ("SD") under section 62 of the Bankruptcy Act to the Plaintiff ("Goh") in respect of about S$3.5 million. The SD was served on 28 September and on 13 October Goh took out this summons to apply to set it aside. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the application and gave the Bank liberty to commence bankruptcy proceedings forthwith. Goh appealed against that decision and the matter came up before me on 7 November 2000. After hearing counsel for the parties, I dismissed the appeal with costs. Goh filed a Notice of Appeal on 17 November against my orders and I now give my written grounds of decision.

2 Goh controls a number of companies and among these are Galleries Development Pte Ltd ("Galleries") and Grandlink Group Pte Ltd ("Grandlink"). These 2 companies entered into various loan agreements with the Bank in which Goh acted as guarantor. He also executed third party mortgages of various properties, which he owned solely or jointly, as security for those facilities. The details of these facilities are as follows:

(i) Banking facilities totalling about $11 million were granted to Galleries. Goh had executed a personal guarantee to secure these facilities. Upon Galleries default the Bank recalled the facilities and instituted legal action against Galleries, and against Goh under the guarantee, to recover the amount outstanding in Suit No. 600161/2000. Goh did not appeal against the judgment that was eventually entered against him for about $3.4 million which became the subject of the SD in the present summons.

(ii) Loan facilities totalling about $50 million were extended to Grandlink. These were secured by third party mortgages over 13 properties which were solely or jointly owned by Goh as well as by a personal guarantee executed by Goh for the sum of $43 million. Grandlink defaulted on the loans and the Bank obtained judgment for the $50 million against Grandlink and against Goh as guarantor. The Bank also obtained an order for possession of the 13 properties under the mortgages. 12 of these were eventually sold, or contracts entered into for their sale, and the total proceeds would be about $35.5 million. The last unsold property is valued at about $3 million with a forced sale value of $2.7 million. After deducting the higher value, there remained a shortfall in excess of $11.5 million which Grandlink and Goh are liable to pay the Bank.

3 Goh relied on 2 grounds for setting aside the SD:

i. Goh had a valid counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which exceeds the amount of the debt; and

ii. The SD did not comply with rule 94(5) of the Bankruptcy Rules.

(i) Counterclaim, set-off or cross demand

4 Rule 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules sets out the grounds for setting aside a statutory demand and provides as follows:

(2) The court shall set aside the statutory demand if --

(a) the debtor appears to have a valid counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which is equivalent to or exceeds the amount of the debt or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee and Another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 30 August 2005
    ...the Bankruptcy Rules. 28 The decision of Lord Denning MR was followed by this court in Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [2001] SGHC 17. Lee Seiu Kin JC (as he then was) stressed that the debtor’s claim had to be valid and bona fide, spurious claims being insufficient to warr......
  • ITronic Holdings Pte Ltd v Tan Swee Leon
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 25 October 2017
    ...Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd [2011] 4 SLR 997 (refd) Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [2001] SGHC 17 (refd) Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld) Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313; [1843–1......
  • Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 6 April 2016
    ...of this disclosure requirement, as explained by the Singapore High Court in Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd [2001] SGHC 17 at [11], is to “make a creditor declare that he holds any asset of the debtor or any security in respect of the debt claimed so that the court m......
  • Tan Eng Joo v United Overseas Bank Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 February 2010
    ...SASR 189 at 194. With respect to valid counterclaims, set-off or cross demands, Goh Chin Soon v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd [2001] SGHC 17, per Lee Seiu Kin JC (as he then was) is also germane: Rule 98(2)(a) provides that the court shall set aside the [Statutory Demand (the “SD......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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