Sia Leng Yuen v HKR Properties: Appeal to Set Aside Statutory Demand Over Guarantee of Loan
Sia Leng Yuen appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the decision to dismiss his application to set aside a statutory demand issued by HKR Properties Limited. The statutory demand was related to a guarantee Sia provided for a loan to Murex Co. Ltd. The court dismissed Sia's appeal, finding that the club memberships held by HKR were security for the loan from Murex, not security provided by Sia, and therefore the statutory demand was valid. The court ordered Sia to pay costs of $1,200.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $1,200.
1.3 Case Type
Bankruptcy
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal to set aside a statutory demand dismissed. The court held that club memberships were security for the loan, not security provided by the debtor.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sia Leng Yuen | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| HKR Properties Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Intekhab Khan | J Koh & Co |
| Liew Yik Wee | Wong Partnership |
4. Facts
- HKR lent US$3 million to Murex, secured by club memberships.
- Sia guaranteed Murex's debt to HKR.
- Murex defaulted, and HKR sued Sia.
- A consent order was entered for Sia to pay HKR.
- Sia defaulted on the consent order.
- HKR issued a statutory demand to Sia.
- Sia applied to set aside the statutory demand.
5. Formal Citations
- Sia Leng Yuen v HKR Properties Limited, OSB 600073/2001, RA 600158/2001, [2001] SGHC 352
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Loan Agreement signed | |
| Murex requested extension of time | |
| Murex unable to make payment | |
| Sia confirmed Guarantee in writing | |
| Murex unable to pay HKR | |
| Consent Order entered | |
| Statutory Demand issued | |
| Appeal dismissed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside Statutory Demand
- Outcome: The court held that the statutory demand was regular and refused to set it aside.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR 503
- Interpretation of Security under Bankruptcy Rules
- Outcome: The court held that 'security' in rules 94(5) and 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules meant 'security on the property of the debtor'.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR 503
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting Aside Statutory Demand
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guarantee
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Insolvency Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Loh Lee Keow & Anor, ex p Keppel TatLee Bank Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 503 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the word 'security' in rules 94(5) and 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Rules, meaning security on the property of the debtor. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Bankruptcy Rules 94(5) |
| Bankruptcy Rules 98(2)(c) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Statutory Demand
- Guarantee
- Consent Order
- Security
- Bankruptcy Rules
- Club Memberships
15.2 Keywords
- statutory demand
- bankruptcy
- guarantee
- security
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Guarantee | 85 |
| Statutory Demand | 75 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Consent Order | 65 |
| Bankruptcy | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Bankruptcy
- Guarantees
- Civil Procedure