HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Suntec Real Estate Investment Trust) v Picket & Rail Asia Pacific Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 30 June 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGHC 184
• Plaintiff Counsel: Thio Ying Ying and Tan Yeow Hiang (Kelvin Chia Partnership)
• Docket Number: Suit No 193 of 2009 (Summons No 2162 of 2010)
• Date: 30 June 2010
• Hearing Date: 21 May 2010
• Subject Matter: Judgments and Orders,Civil Procedure
• Year: 2010
• Citation: [2010] SGHC 184
• Defendant Counsel: Navinder Singh (Navin & Co LLP)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 July 2010

Tan Lee Meng J:

The plaintiff, HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Limited as Trustee of Suntec Real Estate Investment Trust (“HSBCIT”), is the proprietor of Suntec City Shopping Mall (“the Mall”). The defendant, Picket & Rail Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (“PRAP”), is in the business of home furnishing and was a former tenant of 3 Temasek Boulevard, #02-106, a shop unit (“the shop unit”) in the Mall.

PRAP leased the shop unit for 38 months from 1 December 2007 to 31 January 2011. However, on or around 3 December 2008, it abandoned the said shop unit in breach of the lease agreement and ceased its business operations at the Mall. Summary judgment for $233,232.06 was entered against PRAP for its breach of contract on 8 September 2009 (“the summary judgment”) by the Assistant Registrar (“AR”), whose decision was affirmed by the High Court on 16 November 2009. The judgment sum was in respect of arrears in rent, service charge and contributions towards the promotion fund of the Mall. PRAP was also ordered to pay interest on the sum of $214,005.19 from 15 January 2009 to the date of payment at the rate of four per cent over the prime lending rate of United Overseas Bank Limited, calculated on a daily basis.

PRAP filed an appeal against the decision of the judge who affirmed the AR’s decision. It did not file an application for a stay of the judgment. In the meantime, as PRAP had not paid the judgment sum, HSBCIT served a statutory demand on PRAP on 4 February 2010. When it received no response from PRAP, HSBCIT filed an application to wind up PRAP on 27 April 2010. Four days before the hearing of the winding-up petition on 21 May 2010, PRAP sought a stay of execution of the summary judgment. I dismissed PRAP’s application and now give the reasons for my decision.

At the outset, it ought to be noted that although summary judgment was entered against PRAP several months ago, it made no attempt to apply for a stay of the execution of the judgment even when the statutory demand was issued to it on 4 February 2010 and the winding up application was on 27 April 2010. PRAP finally sought a stay of execution of the summary judgment on 17 May 2010, just four days before the date fixed for hearing of HSBCIT’s winding up application on 21 May 2010.

An appeal against summary judgment does not operate as a stay of execution. O 56 r 1(4) of the Rules of Court provides as follows:

Except so far as the Court may otherwise direct, an appeal under this Rule shall not operate as a stay of proceedings in which the appeal is brought.

Furthermore, s 41 of the Supreme...