Re Hong Huat Development: Winding Up Petition & Costs Dispute Over Unsatisfied Arbitration Award
In Re Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over costs following a winding up petition. The petition was filed by the petitioner based on an unsatisfied arbitration award against the respondent. After the Court of Appeal partially reversed the initial judgment, the petitioner withdrew the petition. The court ruled that the respondent should pay costs up to 25 June 1999, the date a stay order was issued, and each party should bear their own costs thereafter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Order for costs payable by the respondent up to 25 June 1999; each party to bear their own costs thereafter.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Winding up petition dispute over an unsatisfied arbitration award. The court addressed the issue of costs after the judgment was partially reversed on appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd | Petitioner | Corporation | Partial | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sharon Tay Mui Leng | Donaldson & Burkinshaw |
4. Facts
- The petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings against the respondent, securing an award in their favor.
- The arbitrator's award held the respondent liable for $351,642.06 and $615,133.42 for breach of contract.
- The respondent paid $315,642.06 but left the remaining sum, interest, and costs unpaid.
- The petitioner filed a winding up petition against the respondent due to the unpaid debt.
- The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal, granting leave to appeal against the arbitration award.
- Judicial Commissioner Woo Bih Lee set aside $555,937.88 of the original award, leaving $46,212.60 to be paid.
- The respondent paid $59,195.51 to the petitioner, covering the remaining debt.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd, CWU 204/1999, [2000] SGHC 215
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator published award in favor of the petitioner. | |
| Respondent paid $315,642.06 to the petitioner. | |
| Statutory demand was served on the respondent. | |
| Applications for leave to appeal and stay of execution were dismissed. | |
| Petitioner filed petition to wind up the respondent. | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's appeal. | |
| Judicial Commissioner Woo Bih Lee delivered judgment largely in favor of the respondent. | |
| Order for the respondent to pay another sum of $12,982.94 was made. | |
| Respondent paid the sum of $59,195.51. | |
| Petitioner applied for leave to withdraw the petition. | |
| Arguments on costs were heard; leave to withdraw petition granted. |
7. Legal Issues
- Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered costs to be payable by the respondent up to 25 June 1999, with each party bearing their own costs thereafter.
- Category: Procedural
- Winding Up Petition
- Outcome: The petitioner was granted leave to withdraw the winding up petition.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Winding Up of Company
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Insolvency Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Anglo-Bavarian Steel Ball Co Ltd | N/A | No | [1899] WN 80 | N/A | Cited regarding the dismissal of a winding up petition and awarding costs against the petitioner when the judgment on which the petition was based was reversed. |
| Cornhill Insurance plc v Improvement Services Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1986] 1 WLR 114 | N/A | Cited for the principle that companies that do not pay their debts have only themselves to blame if it is thought that they cannot pay them. |
| Re Amalgamated Properties of Rhodesia (1913) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1917] 2 Ch 115 | N/A | Cited regarding the approach to winding up petitions based on judgment debts when there is a pending appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Winding Up Petition
- Arbitration Award
- Judgment Debt
- Costs
- Stay of Execution
15.2 Keywords
- winding up
- arbitration
- costs
- judgment debt
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Winding Up | 90 |
| Costs | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
| Company Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Company Law
- Arbitration