Re : Ho Kok Cheong Bankruptcy No 1235 of 1987

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: MPH Rubin J
• Judgment Date: 04 May 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 121
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 09 January 2013
• Year: 1995
• Plaintiff Counsel: S Chandra Mohan (Official Assignee) and Marvin Bay Boon Teck (Assistant Official Assignee)
• Defendant Counsel: Harry Wee (Braddell Brothers) and Bernie Neo (Lee Chang & Partners)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 121

Judgment:

Coram: Rubin J

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Ho Kok Cheong, a prominent former businessman, was adjudicated a bankrupt on 11 December 1987. Under s 38(1)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20) (`the Act'), a bankrupt shall not leave Singapore without the previous permission of the Official Assignee or of the court. Section 38(2) of the Act provides that ` < a > bankrupt who makes default in performing or observing the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a contempt of court, and shall be punished accordingly on the application of the Official Assignee.'

2 Contrary to the injunctions contained in s 38 of the Act, Ho Kok Cheong had been travelling out of Singapore without the consent of the official assignee or the court on more than 300 occasions from 25 December 1987 to 23 January 1995. According to the official assignee he had made 378 unlawful trips but the bankrupt's counsel claimed that he made only 319 such trips. In this context, the official assignee's computations appeared to have been based on the number of destinations reached by the bankrupt whereas figures provided by the bankrupt's counsel were based on the number of departures from Singapore. For the purposes of this appeal, suffice it if I said that the bankrupt's unlawful exits numbered at least 319.

3 Following the institution of committal procceedings as a result of the aforesaid breaches, the bankrupt was produced before the learned assistant registrar, who after hearing him and witnesses for the official assignee, committed the bankrupt to three weeks' imprisonment. Following the order of committal which was pronounced on 24 March 1995, the bankrupt served his sentence and was released from prison on 13 April 1995.

4 However on 5 April 1995 (ie on the 13th day of the prison term of the bankrupt), the official assignee lodged his notice of appeal against the sentence imposed on grounds that it was manifestly inadequate.

5 When this appeal came up for hearing before me, counsel for the bankrupt raised a preliminary objection, stating that there were no provisions in the Act which provided for an appeal against the assistant registrar's committal order. In this regard he referred me to s 92 of the Act which provides as follows:

92.-(1) The court may review, rescind or vary any order made by it under its bankruptcy jurisdiction. (2) Orders in bankruptcy matters shall, at the instance of any person aggrieved, be subject to appeal in the same way as orders of the High Court in other matters are for the time being appealable. (3) For the purposes of this section the Official Assignee shall be deemed to be aggrieved by the refusal of any application made by him to the court.

6 His contention in this regard was that the official assignee could maintain an appeal only if he could show in the first instance that there was a refusal by the court to the application made by him. He contended that since an order of committal had already been made by the assistant registrar following the application, the official assignee could not be deemed a party aggrieved under sub-s (3) of s 92 of the Act. A subsidiary argument by counsel was that in contempt proceedings, once the court had imposed a sentence, there could not be any review or appeal except on the application of the contemnor.

7 As I perceive it, sub-s (3) of s 92 of the Act is intended to create a `deemed grievance' in the event of a refusal by the court to grant the application sought by the official assignee; it is an...