Re Lim Annie

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 27 November 1986
• Date: 27 November 1986
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy No 45 of 1986
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Lim Annie

[1986] SGHC 53

Chan Sek Keong JC

Bankruptcy No 45 of 1986

High Court

Insolvency Law–Bankruptcy–Application to set aside bankruptcy notice–Bankruptcy notice followingverbatim monetary judgment obtained by judgment creditor–Interest not claimed as fixed sum in notice–Whether bankruptcy notice valid–Rule 92 Bankruptcy Rules and s 3 (1) (i) Bankruptcy Act (Cap 18, 1970 Rev Ed)–Insolvency Law–Bankruptcy–Bankruptcy notice–Whether court had discretion to order hearing of application to set aside bankruptcy notice to be adjourned until hearing of application to set aside judgment against debtor–Whether court would exercise such discretion–Insolvency Law–Bankruptcy–Validity–Application to set aside bankruptcy notice–Whether notice could be set aside on grounds that it did not state exact amount due–Whether court could go behind judgment to inquire into validity of debt

This was an application by the debtor to set aside a bankruptcy notice (“the notice”) which had been served on her by substituted service. The description of the amounts payable under the bankruptcy notice followed verbatim the monetary judgment entered by the judgment creditor against the debtor in default of the latter's appearance.

The debtor applied to set aside the notice, the order for substituted service of the notice and the service itself on several grounds. First, the notice had expired before the order for substituted service was granted and no order extending the time of service was granted. Second, the order for substituted service should not have been granted as it was made after one personal service was attempted. Third, the debtor alleged that the judgment sum was on the face of it in excess of the amount due as the judgment carried interest on the judgment amount in excess of the statutory rate of interest. Fourth, the debtor alleged that the notice did not state the exact sum which the debtor was called upon to pay. Finally, the debtor alleged that the judgment debt was disputed and she had made an application to set aside the judgment obtained against her in default of appearance.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The first two grounds were of no substance as time for the service of the notice had been extended by an order of court and the order for substituted service was made after four attempts to serve on the applicant had been made in vain: at [5].

(2) The debtor's third and fourth complaints were also untenable. A bankruptcy notice which followed precisely the terms of a judgment was valid even though the interest was not claimed as a fixed sum therein so long as it was capable of being calculated or ascertained by some formula or other means: at [8].

(3) There was no substance in the debtor's complaint that the notice did not state the exact amount payable by the debtor. It was entirely speculative as no evidence was produced to show that the rate of interest on the judgment debt was in excess of the statutory rate of interest: at [9].

(4) Even if the notice did not fulfil the criteria of stating the exact amount due, the debtor was not entitled to rely...