Tan Eng Joo v United Overseas Bank Ltd

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgePhilip Pillai JC
Judgment Date05 February 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 42
Citation[2010] SGHC 42
Published date11 February 2010
Date05 February 2010
Plaintiff CounselRanvir Kumar Singh (Instructed Counsel) (Surian & Partners)
Subject MatterInsolvency Law
Defendant CounselHri Kumar Nair SC and Tham Feei Sy (Drew & Napier LLC)
Hearing Date04 January 2010
Docket NumberOriginating Summons Bankruptcy No 39 of 2009 (Registrar’s Appeal No 435 of 2009)
Philip Pillai JC:

This was an appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s application to set aside the defendant’s statutory demand of USD 10,309,708.87 and grant of leave to the defendant to file a bankruptcy application against the plaintiff after the day of that order.

The appeal was based on rr 98(2)(b) and (e) of the Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Bankruptcy Rules”) viz that the statutory demand is disputed on grounds which appear to the court to be substantial or that the court is satisfied on other grounds that the demand ought to be set aside, respectively.

It was common ground that the test to be applied by the court in this determination is the same as the test to be applied for the grant of summary judgment pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, Rev Ed), ie whether or not there are triable issues to go to trial.

Is there a triable issue that the guarantee has been discharged by reason of impairment caused by the defendant?

The plaintiff argued that he was discharged from the joint and several continuing guarantee or that at least there was a genuine triable issue on whether or not he had been discharged.

The threshold for this court is helpfully set out by the Court of Appeal in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee CA [2006] 2 SLR(R) at [19] that there is “some real doubt about the question, thus a triable issue, upon which further evidence or arguments [are] required.” In Manjit Kaur Monica v Standard Chartered Bank [2000] SGHC 205, Woo Bih Li JC (as he then was) adopted the formulation in Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785 at 787-788 by McLelland CJ in the following terms:

It is, however, necessary to consider the meaning of the expression “genuine dispute” where it occurs in [s 459H of the Corporations Law]. In my opinion that expression connotes a plausible contention requiring investigations, and raises much the same sort of consideration as the “serious question to be tried” criterion which arises on an application for an interlocutory injunction or for the extension or removal of a caveat. This does not mean that the court must accept uncritically as giving rise to a genuine dispute, every statement in an affidavits “however equivocal, lacking in precision, inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent, or inherently improbable in itself, it may be “sufficient prima facie plaudibility to merit further investigation as to [its] truth” (cf Eng Mee Yong v Letchumann [1980] AC 331 at 341), or “a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of acts unsupported by evidence”: cf South Australia v Wall (1980) 24 SASR 189 at 194.

With respect to valid counterclaims, set-off or cross demands, Goh Chin Soon v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd [2001] SGHC 17, per Lee Seiu Kin JC (as he then was) is also germane:

Rule 98(2)(a) provides that the court shall set aside the [Statutory Demand (the “SD”)]...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mohd Nizam B Ismail v Comptroller of Income Tax
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 January 2014
    ...of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), ie, whether or not there are triable issues to go to trial: Tan Eng Joo v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 703 (“Tan Eng Joo”). The threshold for the court is whether there is “some real doubt about the question, thus, a triable issue, upon which f......
  • Thu Aung Zaw v Norb Creative Studio
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 April 2014
    ...O 14 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed). If there are, in the words of the court in Tan Eng Joo v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 703 at [3], “triable issues to go to trial”, the statutory demand should be set aside. The role of the court has been clearly defined in Wong......
  • Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Ravichandran s/o Suppiah
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 January 2015
    ...dissipate his assets. As noted in Mohd Zain as well as in another case cited by the Plaintiffs, Tan Eng Joo v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 703, the test is the same as that for O 14 cases. Cases on O 14 therefore would give useful guidance. The defendant in an O 14 case has the bur......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT