Ng Siam Khui and another v Ang Meng Lee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 05 April 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGHC 103
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 11 February 2010
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy No 2488 of 2009 (Registrar’s Appeal No 29 of 2010)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hui Choon Wai (Wee Swee Teow & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Alvin Chang (M & A Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Insolvency law
• Published date: 07 April 2010

Woo Bih Li J: Introduction

The plaintiffs, Ng Siam Khui and See Tji Kiong, have the benefit of an order from the Court of Appeal (“CA”) in an action for payment to them of an aggregate sum of $1,740,755.87 (“the Debt”) but the CA also directed an inquiry for accounts to be taken on certain other matters as between the parties. The plaintiffs’ position was that the payment of the Debt had to be made first but the position of the defendant, Ang Meng Lee (“AML”), was that the amount payable to the plaintiffs was disputed because the Debt was subject to the inquiry on accounts as directed in the other parts of the order from the CA.

The issue as to whether AML had to pay the Debt first was resolved in various proceedings in lower courts in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs presented an Originating Summons No B2488/2009 which was a bankruptcy application against AML based on the Debt. AML applied to set aside the bankruptcy application in Summons No 183 of 2010 on the basis that the Debt need not be paid first. The application was dismissed by an Assistant Registrar. AML appealed and I dismissed the appeal. AML is appealing against my decision.

Background

The background was set out in the written submission for the plaintiffs which I reiterate below.

Background

1. Suit 563/2005/N

After the trial of this suit before the Honourable Justice Lai Siu Chiu, Ang Meng Lee’s (“AML”) claim against Ng Siam Khui (“NSK”) and See Tji Kiong (“STK”) was dismissed on 28 November 2008 and NSK/STK obtained judgment on their counterclaim for $3,306,496.22, an order allowing monies that had been paid into Court to be paid out the [sic] NSK/STK and orders for accounts and inquiry proceedings against AML.

2. CA 209/2008/Z

Upon AML’s appeal, the CA refined the Learned Trial Judge’s orders as follows: 1. The Appellant (AML) shall pay the Respondents (NSK/STK) the sum of $3,306,496.22; 2. The Appellant (AML) and 1st Respondent (NSK) shall each be entitled to one-half of the sum of $3,109,298.15 plus accrued interest previously paid into Court under Originating Summons No.665 of 2005; 3. The Appellant (AML) shall pay the Respondents (NSK/STK) the costs of the counterclaim; 4. The Appellant (AML) and the 1st Respondent (NSK) shall each be entitled to one-half of the rent received in respect of 20B Nassim Road. The Appellant (AML) shall account to the 1st Respondent (NSK) in respect of the rent received from 20B Nassim Road, less the sums paid by the Appellant (AML) to service the loans. In the event that the net amount of rent so determined is more than $3,306,496.22, half of this excess shall be paid by the Appellant (AML) to the 1st Respondent (NSK). However, in the event that the net amount of rent is less than $3,306,496.22, the 1st Respondent (NSK) shall repay half the deficit to the Appellant (AML); 5. The Appellant (AML) is accountable to the 1st Respondent (NSK) for half the sale proceeds of 19 Second Avenue Singapore less the amount of $600,000 utilised to purchase 20B Nassim Road; 6. The Appellant (AML) and the 1st Respondent (NSK) shall bear equally all reasonable expenses incurred by the Appellant (AML) in the management and upkeep of 20B Nassim Road Singapore and the 1st Respondent (NSK) shall reimburse the Appellant (AML) as to half thereof; 7. An inquiry shall be held by the Registrar to ascertain the amounts due to each of the parties under paragraphs (2), (4), (5) and (6) hereof; 8. The costs of the inquiry shall be reserved to the Registrar hearing the inquiry; and 9. There shall be no order as to the costs of this Appeal. The Respondents shall pay the Appellant her disbursements incurred in relation to this Appeal to be agreed or taxed.

3. Under B2488/2009/Q, NSK/STK are claiming a debt of $1,740,755.87. Under CA Order 1, AML is liable to pay NSK/STK $3,306,496.22 forthwith. Under CA Order 2, the effect would be that NSK/STK becomes liable to pay AML half of the sum paid out by the Court to NSK/STK [ie $3,131,480.70 ÷ 2]. This sum is indisputable. The net figure payable by AML to NSK/STK is therefore $1,740,755.87 (“the Debt”).

AML’s application

4. The ground of AML’s application to set aside the Bankruptcy application is that the amount claimed by NSK/STK is disputed. AML’s sole basis for disputing this is her interpretation of the CA Order, which is, that the payment under CA Order 1 (of $3,306,496.22) is subject to the deductions of items under CA Orders 4, 5 and 6 (“the 3 Items”). At Para 7 of AML’s affidavit filed in this summons, AML states:

“7. It is my contention that the terms of the Order of the Court of Appeal make it clear that the sum of $3,306,496.22 which is payable pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Order is subject to the following deductions, which are set out in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the Order of the Court of Appeal-

(a) Firstly the net amount of rent received by me in respect of 20B Nassim Road (see paragraph 4 of the Order of the Court of Appeal);

(b) Secondly, the sale proceeds of a property at 19 Second Avenue received by me, less...