Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 30 April 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 122 |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 122 |
Subject Matter | Statutory Demand,Insolvency Law,Bankruptcy |
Docket Number | Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) No 15 of 2015 (Registrar’s Appeal No 89 of 2015) |
Date | 30 April 2015 |
Defendant Counsel | Sim Kwan Kiat and Eugene Tan (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) |
Hearing Date | 13 April 2015 |
Published date | 01 May 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | The plaintiff in person |
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 SD Under 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...
To continue reading
Request your 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......
-
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 ......
-
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......
-
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 ......