Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 30 April 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 122 |
Published date | 01 May 2015 |
Date | 30 April 2015 |
Year | 2015 |
Hearing Date | 13 April 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | The plaintiff in person |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 122 |
Defendant Counsel | Sim Kwan Kiat and Eugene Tan (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 15 of 2015 (Registrar's Appeal No 89 of 2015) |
The plaintiff, who was the director of Realm Capital Limited (“Realm Capital”), had applied in Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 15 of 2015 (“OSB 15”) to set aside a statutory demand dated 14 October 2014 for a sum of $2,209,863.01 (“the SD”) which was served on him through his solicitors on 15 October 2014. Prior to OSB 15, the defendant had commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the plaintiff in Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 2552 of 2014 (OSB 2552).
In OSB 15, the plaintiff applied for (a) an extension of time to make the application to set aside the SD issued against him; (b) the SD to be set aside; and (c) alternatively, that the SD be declared manifestly irregular, invalid, null and void and of no effect. The assistant registrar dismissed the plaintiff’s application in OSB 15. The plaintiff appealed and the matter came before me. After hearing the parties, I dismissed the appeal. As the plaintiff has filed an appeal against my decision, I now give my reasons.
Extension of time to set aside the SDUnder r 97(1)(
In
In
In
In this case, there was a substantial delay of about four months. The plaintiff was represented during this time but claimed that he was not satisfied with the services provided by his solicitors at that time. The plaintiff then discharged his solicitors and acted in person after that. He further claimed that he only received the documents pertaining to his bankruptcy proceedings on 17 February 2015. I did not find this to be a sufficient reason to account for the delay. Counsel for the defendant pointed out that the plaintiff’s solicitors had appeared at the first hearing of OSB 2552 on 22 January 2015. At that hearing, the plaintiff was granted an adjournment as he, through his solicitors, had expressed an intention to make a settlement offer to the defendant. The defendant did not accept the offer. This showed that the plaintiff was well aware of the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against him following the service of the SD.
However, the defendant did not point to any prejudice suffered by him as a result of the delay. Moreover, one ground relied on the plaintiff to set aside the SD was that service of the SD was irregular. This could have had an impact on the application for extension of time since it was potentially arguable that r 97(1) of the Bankruptcy Rules proceeded on the assumption that service of the SD was valid. I therefore proceeded to hear the substantive merits of the plaintiff application to set aside the SD. In any event, I found that the plaintiff’s application to set aside the SD was without any merit. Therefore, the granting of the extension was not material to my decision.
The plaintiff’s arguments to set aside the SDFirst argument: service of the SD was not validThe plaintiff claimed that the defendant had failed to effect personal service of the SD as required by r 96(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules. The defendant did not deny that no personal service was effected on the plaintiff. The SD was served on the plaintiff’s solicitors (at that time). In a letter dated 3 October 2014, the defendant’s solicitors wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors asking whether they had instructions to accept service of process (including service of statutory demands) on the plaintiff’s behalf. The plaintiff’s solicitors replied that they had instructions to accept service on behalf of the plaintiff.
In
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLP
...days and the respondent would therefore not be prejudiced by the extension. As the court held in Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong [2015] 3 SLR 1204 (“Liew Kai Lung Karl”) at [6], the threshold to grant an application for an extension of time for a debtor to apply to set aside a statut......
-
Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLP
...set aside the SD after only a short delay and with no prejudice to the defendant. Mr Kang cited Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong [2015] 3 SLR 1204 (“Liew Kai Lung Karl”) to make the case that the threshold to obtain an extension of time was not a particularly high one, and also argued......
-
Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong
...2015 (“OSB 15/2015”) and in the consequent Registrar’s Appeal No 89 of 2015 (“RA 89/2015”) (See Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong [2015] 3 SLR 1204). The main grounds relied on by the appellant in RA 89/2015 were that the service of the SD was irregular and that there was a dispute as ......
-
Insolvency Law
...even if such assets do not amount to a security interest. Dispute on substantial grounds 17.22 In Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong[2015] 3 SLR 1204 (‘Liew Kai Lung Karl’), the High Court was faced with an application to set aside statutory demands on the ground that the debt demanded ......