Wong David H v Timothy Seow Group Architects Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Lee Meng J
• Judgment Date: 05 July 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 110
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 2209 of
• Date: 05 July 2007
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 06 July 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sankaran Karthikeyan (Toh Tan & Partners)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 110
• Defendant Counsel: Ranvir Kumar Singh (Unilegal LLC),Chandra Mohan and Robert Tay Chun Leng (Rajah & Tann)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Rejection of proof of debt by liquidator,Winding up,Insolvency Law,Whether time should be extended for appealing against liquidator's rejection of proof of debt,Rule 93 Companies (Winding Up) Rules (Cap 50, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed)

5 July 2007

Tan Lee Meng J:

1 This case involves an application by a person who claims to be a creditor of a company in liquidation for an extension of time to appeal against the rejection by the said company’s former liquidator of his Proof of Debt more than 6 ½ years ago; the law requires that such an appeal must, unless the leave of the court is obtained, be lodged within 21 days of the rejection. The plaintiff, Mr David H Wong (“Mr Wong”), sought an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of Mr Don Ho Mun Tuke (“Mr Don Ho”), the former liquidator of the first defendant, Timothy Seow Group Architects Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) (“TSG”), who rejected his claim against TSG on 17 April 2000. I dismissed the application and now give the reasons for my decision.

Background

2 Mr Wong, an architect from Vancouver, and a number of other architects, including the second defendant, Mr Timothy Seow (Mr Seow”), formed an architectural practice called SLH International (“SLH”) in 1994. Mr Wong left SLH in August 1995 and returned to Canada.

3 SLH was dissolved on 26 September 1996 and many of its architects set up TSG, which was incorporated in January 1996.

4 TSG went into voluntary liquidation after another architect, one Mr Jeffrey Yap (“Mr Yap”), obtained a consent judgment against it in Suit No 664 of 1998 for unpaid design fees amounting to $600,321.00.

5 Mr Wong filed a Proof of Debt against TSG with respect to services rendered. On 17 April 2000, the former liquidator, Mr Don Ho, rejected his Proof of Debt on the following grounds:

(a) The period of the claim was in relation to work done prior to the incorporation of TSG in 1996;

(b) Mr Wong’s claim for salary was in relation to his employment by SLH and not by TSG; and

(c) The amount of profits claimed by Mr Wong was in relation to projects under the name of SLH and not TSG.

6 Mr Wong’s solicitors intimated to Mr Don Ho that he would take steps to reverse or vary the decision to reject his Proof of Debt.

7 On 15 May 2000, Mr Don Ho released his report on TSG.

8 On 5 June 2000, Mr Wong’s solicitors invited Mr Don Ho to reconsider his decision on the rejection of Mr Wong’s Proof of Debt. Although the then liquidator did not change his mind, Mr Wong took no further action for more than 6 years. It was only on 21 July 2006 that he wrote to TSG’s present liquidators to restore his Proof of Debt. On 24 November 2006, some 6 ½ years after his Proof of Debt had been rejected by Mr Don Ho, he filed Originating Summons No 2209 of 2006 to seek an extension of time to appeal against the former liquidator’s decision.

Whether the period for filing an appeal should be extended

9 A creditor who wishes to appeal against a liquidator’s rejection of his Proof of Debt must take note of s 93 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules (Cap 50, R1 2006 Rev Ed), which provides as follows:

If a creditor or contributory is dissatisfied with the decision of the liquidator in respect of a proof, the Court may, on the application of the creditor or contributory, reverse or vary the decision; but subject to the power of the Court to extend the time, no application to reverse or vary the decision of the liquidator in a winding up by the Court rejecting a proof sent to him by a creditor, or person claiming to be a creditor, shall be entertained unless notice of the application is given before...