Tiong Polestar Engineering: Unfair Preference & Liquidator's Rights in Winding Up

In the High Court of Singapore, Woo Bih Li J presided over the case of *Re Tiong Polestar Engineering (formerly known as Polestar Engineering (S) Pte Ltd)*, concerning an application by the liquidator, Mr. Jamshid Keki Medora, to declare certain payments made by Tiong Polestar Engineering Pte Ltd ('the Company') to Tiong Asia Marine Pte Ltd ('TAM') as unfair preferences and voidable under the Companies Act. The liquidator challenged payments made pursuant to garnishee proceedings and payments for rent and utilities. The court found that TAM was not entitled to retain the benefit of the garnishee order and that certain payments of rent and utilities constituted an unfair preference, ordering TAM to pay the liquidator a total of $911,637.98.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application granted in part; payments to TAM declared an unfair preference.

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding unfair preference claims in the winding up of Tiong Polestar Engineering. The liquidator sought to void payments to TAM.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tiong Polestar Engineering Pte LtdDefendantCorporation
Jamshid Keki MedoraApplicantIndividual
Tiong Asia Marine Pte LtdRespondentCorporationGarnishee Order Absolute not entitled to retainLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The Company was wound up by court order on 24 March 2000.
  2. The winding-up petition was presented on 24 February 2000.
  3. TAM obtained a Garnishee Order Absolute against the Company.
  4. TAM received $330,333.94 pursuant to the Garnishee Order Absolute on 25 February 2000.
  5. TAM was an associate of the Company.
  6. The Company made payments of rent and utilities to TAM within two years of the winding-up petition.
  7. The Company was insolvent at the time of the payments.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Tiong Polestar Engineering (formerly known as Polestar Engineering (S) Pte Ltd, CWU 60/2000; SIC 600915/2002, [2003] SGHC 8

6. Timeline

DateEvent
TAM leased space to the Company for two years.
TAM increased the rent.
TAM increased the rent again.
Start of the period during which payments to TAM were challenged as unfair preference.
TAM issued a Notice to Quit to the Company.
Winding-up petition against the Company was presented.
UOB issued a cashier's order to TAM.
TAM received the cashier's order from UOB.
Court ordered the winding up of the Company.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Unfair Preference
    • Outcome: The court found that certain payments made by the Company to TAM constituted an unfair preference.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2002] 4 SLR 145
  2. Liquidator's Rights
    • Outcome: The court held that the liquidator had the right to claim the garnished monies.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Locus Standi of Liquidator
    • Outcome: The court held that the liquidator had the locus standi to make the application.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that payments constitute unfair preference
  2. Order for repayment of monies
  3. Declaration that TAM is not entitled to retain the benefit of the execution or attachment pursuant to garnishee proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

  • Unfair Preference
  • Recovery of garnished funds

10. Practice Areas

  • Liquidation
  • Corporate Restructuring

11. Industries

  • Marine Engineering

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Show Theatres Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Shaw Theatres Pte Ltd & AnorCourt of AppealYes[2002] 4 SLR 145SingaporeCited for the proposition that TAM was connected to the Company and hence an associate of the Company.
Re Libra Industries Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)N/ANo[2000] 1 SLR 84SingaporeCited to show that the liquidator made the application.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Companies (Winding Up) Rules (Cap 50, R 1, 1990 Rev Ed) r 7(2)
Singapore Companies (Winding Up Rules) Rules 5(1)
Singapore Companies (Winding Up Rules) Rules 5(2)
Singapore Companies (Winding Up Rules) Rules 7(1)
Singapore Companies (Winding Up Rules) Rules 7(2)
Singapore Companies (Winding Up Rules) Rules 8(1)
Singapore Companies (Winding Up Rules) Rules 8(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) s 334(1)(c)Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) s 260Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) s 329Singapore
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bankruptcy Act 1995 s 99Singapore
Bankruptcy Act 1995 s 100(1)(b)Singapore
Companies Act s 411Singapore
Companies Act s 410Singapore
Companies Act s 2Singapore
Companies Act s 272(a)Singapore
Companies Act s 273(3)Singapore
Companies Act s 4(1)Singapore
Companies Act s 273Singapore
Companies Act s 288Singapore
Companies Act s 305Singapore
Companies Act s 306Singapore
Companies Act s 227T(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Winding up
  • Unfair preference
  • Liquidator
  • Garnishee Order Absolute
  • Associate
  • Insolvency

15.2 Keywords

  • Winding up
  • Unfair preference
  • Liquidator
  • Garnishee
  • Companies Act
  • Bankruptcy Act

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Insolvency
  • Winding Up
  • Unfair Preference