Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Official Assignee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 17 July 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 184
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 600396 of
• Date: 17 July 2001
• Year: 2001
• Published date: 07 November 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Hwang SC and Kelvin Low (Allen & Gledhill)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 184
• Defendant Counsel: Lee Cheow Han and Sunari bin Kateni
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Duties and liabilities,Civil Procedure,Judgments and orders,Bankruptcy,Whether Official Assignee liable for costs,Costs,Whether application seeking declaration justified,Insolvency Law,Liability as to costs as litigant in action at law,Official Assignee,Order as to costs against Official Assignee of estate of bankrupt

: In 1993 one Chua Puay Kiang (`Chua`) sued Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (`SingTel`) and two other defendants in Suit 2103/93 (`the 1993 action`). Chua was adjudicated a bankrupt on 13 February 1998. The trial was adjourned for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of the Official Assignee to proceed. An application was made on 25 June 1998 to change the name of the plaintiff in the 1993 action from Chua Puay Kiang to `The Official Assignee of the Estate of Chua Puay Kiang (a bankrupt)`. The application was allowed and the trial resumed and parties made their final submissions to the trial judge. On 30 October 1998 the judge made the following order: `The plaintiff`s claim be dismissed with one set of costs payable to the defendants.`

SingTel commenced this present originating summons before me against the Official Assignee as defendant for a declaration that when the Official Assignee becomes a litigant in an action at law, he is liable in the same way as any other litigant as to costs. Secondly, for a declaration that the Official Assignee is liable to pay the costs in the 1993 action and thirdly, for an order that the costs be so paid.

It was submitted by Mr Lee Cheow Han on behalf of the Official Assignee that the costs should be paid by a third party guarantor. International Information Service Pte Ltd subsequently agreed to bear the costs. Mr Lee submitted that the third party`s undertaking was given pursuant to the direction of the Registrar, Supreme Court and that the Official Assignee did not ask for that undertaking.

Mr Michael Hwang SC appeared on behalf of SingTel and argued that the costs are payable by the Official Assignee. The parties exchanged written submissions on the question as they perceived it to be, namely, whether the Official Assignee is obliged to pay the costs personally.

For what appears to be a straightforward matter, it came up for judicial adjudication in a most unusual way, and I shall revert to this point after I deal with the meaning and effect of the trial judge`s order.

The judgment extracted by the defendants has no ambiguity. When a judge rules that the plaintiff pays the costs to the defendant he means just that. In this case, when the judgment was handed down on 30 October 1998 there was no doubt who the plaintiff was. It was the Official Assignee. The court was not concerned whether the Official Assignee pays the costs out of his own funds (that is, the funds available to the office of the Official Assignee, and not the personal funds of the officer who holds that position, obviously), or from the estate of the bankrupt, or from some third party guarantor.

How the Official Assignee arranges funds for the payment of costs of litigation in such cases is usually not made known to the court and, indeed, the court is not concerned with that. If the Official Assignee does not sanction the continuation of the legal proceedings, the proceedings come to an end, effectively.

However, there will be cases where the Official Assignee may take a...