SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd v Artison Interior Pte Ltd
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Judge | Steven Chong JA |
Judgment Date | 15 January 2019 |
Neutral Citation | [2019] SGCA 5 |
Citation | [2019] SGCA 5 |
Published date | 19 January 2019 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Chia Swee Chye Kelvin (Lumen Law Corporation) |
Defendant Counsel | A Rajandran (A Rajandran) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 231 of 2017 |
Hearing Date | 13 November 2018 |
Date | 15 January 2019 |
Subject Matter | Insolvency Law,Stay of Proceedings,Winding Up |
This court in
In this appeal, the appellant sought to distinguish the present case from
We recognised that the argument that service of the garnishee order
While an established line of cases has held that the service of a garnishee order
The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated briefly. The appellant engaged the respondent to undertake interior decoration works under two subcontracts. After making certain overpayments in excess of work done under one of these subcontracts, the appellant sued the respondent in the District Court for the return of these overpayments.1 On 27 June 2017, the appellant obtained judgment against the respondent for the sum of $250,000, plus interests and costs (“the District Court judgment”).2
In a bid to enforce the District Court judgment, the appellant filed a garnishee application against the garnishee, Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd (“Shanghai Chong Kee”), on 12 September 2017 in respect of the sum of $155,000.3 It successfully obtained a garnishee order
By a letter dated 4 October 2017, the appellant’s solicitors informed the respondent’s solicitors that the show cause hearing for both the garnishee applications had been fixed on 10 October 2017.5 On 6 October 2017, however, the respondent’s solicitors informed the appellant that the respondent company had been placed under creditors’ voluntary winding up on 5 October 2017, pursuant to a directors’ resolution and the appointment of a liquidator on the same date. Under s 299(2) of the Act, a stay of proceedings took effect whereby no action or proceeding could be proceeded with except with leave of court. The operation of s 334(1) of the Act also meant that the appellant would not be entitled to retain the benefit of the attachment against the liquidator, unless the court ordered otherwise. The appellant thus filed an application to the High Court for leave to proceed with the garnishee proceedings and to be allowed to retain the benefit of the attachment as against the liquidator.
The decision below The Judge dismissed the appellant’s application and declined to grant the appellant leave to continue with the garnishee proceedings. His grounds of decision are recorded at
The Judge disagreed with the appellant’s argument that its situation was distinguishable from that in
We agreed with the Judge that the starting position is governed by ss 299(2) and 334(1) of the Act which apply to secured and unsecured creditors alike. Since winding up had commenced, the appellant could not proceed with the garnishing process except with leave of court; and since the attachment of the debt was incomplete at the time of the winding up, the default position was that the appellant could not retain the benefit of the attachment against the liquidator, unless the court were to set aside the liquidator’s rights in its discretion under s 334(1)(
We recognise, however, that while ss 299(2) and 334(1)(
The key issue for determination was thus whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Re The Joint And Several Liquidators Of Cefc Shanghai International Group Limited (In Liquidation In The Mainland Of The People’s Republic Of China
...2 AC 192, 209 (B-G) and 213 (F-H); Credit Lyonnais v SK Global Hong Kong Ltd [2003] 4 HKC 104 at [8(4)]; SCK Serijadi v Artison Interior [2019] SGCA 5; [2019] 1 SLR 680 at [31], [32] and [34]. [19] Supra footnote 10 [16]; see also CCIC Finance Ltd v Guangdong International Trust and Investm......
-
Tembusu Growth Fund II Ltd and another v Yee Fook Khong and another
...effect of creating an equitable charge over the 13.8% of Metro beneficially owned by the first defendant. As the Court of Appeal observed in SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd v Artison Interior Pte Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 680 (“SCK”) at [22]: … [A]n equitable charge may arise whenever property is “expressly or......
-
SECC Holdings Pte Ltd v Helios PV (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Sinohydro Corporation Limited (Singapore Branch), garnishee)
...deal with the debt specified in the order in a way that is inconsistent with the order” (SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd v Artison Interior Pte Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 680 at [29] (“SCK v Artison”), citing Choice Investments Ltd v Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd, garnishee) [1981] 2 WLR 80 at 83). After the pro......
-
United Securities Sdn Bhd (in receivership and liquidation) and another v United Overseas Bank Ltd
...that arises upon the winding up of the debtor. This was explained by this court in SCK Serijadi Sdn Bhd v Artison Interior Pte Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 680 (“Artison”) at [11] as follows: … [T]here is in some sense an ‘exception’ carved out for secured creditors … In general, the court will more re......