Velstra Pte Ltd v Dexia Bank Belgium: Stay of Proceedings & Prejudice in Concurrent Criminal Case
Velstra Pte Ltd (in liquidation) sued Dexia Bank Belgium in the High Court of Singapore, seeking to void a transaction where Velstra paid US$20.92 million to Dexia. Dexia sought a stay of the Singapore proceedings due to concurrent criminal proceedings against them in Belgium involving the same transaction, arguing prejudice to their rights. The High Court dismissed Dexia's appeal, finding no real danger of prejudice to justify a stay, especially after the plaintiff's counsel provided undertakings regarding the evidence they would present.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal by Dexia Bank Belgium for a stay of civil proceedings in Singapore was dismissed. The court found no real danger of prejudice from concurrent criminal proceedings in Belgium.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Velstra Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Won | Vinodh Coomaraswamy, David Chan |
| Dexia Bank Belgium | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Tan Chuan Thye, Ivan Chia |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Shook Lin & Bok |
| David Chan | Shook Lin & Bok |
| Tan Chuan Thye | Allen & Gledhill |
| Ivan Chia | Allen & Gledhill |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was ordered to be placed in compulsory liquidation on 12 April 2002.
- Plaintiff sought a declaration that a US$20.92 million payment to Defendant was a transaction at an undervalue.
- Defendant was indicted in Belgium for criminal offences related to the transactions in dispute.
- Plaintiff's counsel undertook not to adduce secondary evidence of documents from the Belgian authorities.
- Defendant claimed it received the US$20.92 million in the ordinary course of banking business.
- The defendant could not provide a timeframe as to when the trial against them would commence in Belgium.
5. Formal Citations
- Velstra Pte Ltd v Dexia Bank Belgium, OS 1181/2002, RA 335/2003, [2003] SGHC 253
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff ordered to be placed in compulsory liquidation. | |
| Plaintiff paid US$20.92 million to the defendant. | |
| Defendant debited US$31,000,00 from Internal Account and credited US$21,000,000 to the Account. | |
| Plaintiff instructed DBS to pay US$20,920,000 to the Defendant. | |
| US$20,919,991 credited to Defendant's account with Chase Manhattan Bank. | |
| Defendant made an adjustment to the Account. | |
| Reply by the plaintiff was filed. | |
| Defendant was indicted in Belgium. | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter to the defendant's solicitors requesting information. | |
| Defendant's solicitors replied to the plaintiff's solicitors. | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendant's solicitors regarding witnesses. | |
| Defendant applied for stay of proceedings. | |
| Assistant Registrar dismissed the stay application. | |
| Defendant's counsel requested the plaintiff be permitted to present further arguments. | |
| Further arguments were heard. | |
| Hearing of this action scheduled to commence. | |
| Hearing of this action scheduled to end. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Real danger of prejudice
- Rights to silence
- Self-incrimination
- Related Cases:
- Wells v Abrahams (1872) LR 7 QB 554
- Jefferson Ltd Bhetcha [1979] 2 All ER 1108
- Transaction at an Undervalue
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on this issue, as the application was for a stay of proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that transaction is null and void
- Ancillary and incidental reliefs
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration that transaction is void
- Transaction at an undervalue
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Insolvency Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wells v Abrahams | Queen's Bench | Yes | Wells v Abrahams (1872) LR 7 QB 554 | England | Cited for the traditional view on concurrent criminal proceedings and the suspension of civil remedies. |
| Jefferson Ltd v Bhetcha | Court of Appeal | Yes | Jefferson Ltd Bhetcha [1979] 2 All ER 1108 | England | Cited for the redefined view on concurrent criminal proceedings and the court's discretion to stay civil proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Stay of proceedings
- Transaction at an undervalue
- Concurrent criminal proceedings
- Real danger of prejudice
- Secondary evidence
- Right to silence
- Self-incrimination
- Liquidation
15.2 Keywords
- Stay of proceedings
- Bankruptcy Act
- Companies Act
- Transaction at undervalue
- Criminal proceedings
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Company Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Bankruptcy Law
- Company Law
- Conflict of Laws