Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee: Appeal on Setting Aside Statutory Demands Under Bankruptcy Act
In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee and Another, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to set aside statutory demands issued by Anthony Wee Soon Kim against Lim Chor Pee and Marc Lim Hsi Wei, partners of Chor Pee & Partners. The statutory demands were related to unpaid loans. The respondents argued a valid counterclaim existed based on outstanding legal fees. The court dismissed the appeal, finding genuine triable issues regarding the validity of the counterclaim and the nature of the law firm's structure.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding setting aside statutory demands. The court considered if bills of costs gave rise to a valid counterclaim and if genuine triable issues existed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Chor Pee | Respondent | Individual | Statutory demand set aside | Won | Andre Arul, Ling Leong Hui |
| Lim Hsi Wei Marc | Respondent | Individual | Statutory demand set aside | Won | Andre Arul, Ling Leong Hui |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Kew Chai | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andre Arul | Arul Chew and Partners |
| Ling Leong Hui | Arul Chew and Partners |
4. Facts
- The appellant issued statutory demands against the respondents for unpaid loans.
- The respondents claimed a valid counterclaim, set-off, or cross demand based on outstanding legal fees.
- The appellant disputed the legal fees, alleging an agreement to cap costs.
- The respondents rendered five bills of costs to the appellant.
- The appellant claimed the respondents were barred from claiming costs under s 118 of the LPA.
- The respondents contended that Lim Chor Pee was the sole proprietor of the firm.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee and Another, OSB 3/2005, 4/2005, 5/2005, RA 35/2005, 36/2005, 37/2005, [2005] SGHC 159
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant brought Suit No 834 of 2001 against UBS AG. | |
| Lim Chor Pee agreed to act for the appellant. | |
| Suit was dismissed by Kan Ting Chiu J. | |
| Appeal from Kan J’s decision in Civil Appeal No 1 of 2004 was dismissed. | |
| LCP was served with two statutory demands. | |
| ML was served with a statutory demand. | |
| The firm issued four bills to the appellant. | |
| The respondents filed Originating Summons Nos 3, 4 and 5 of 2005. | |
| Another bill was issued to the appellant. | |
| The statutory demands were set aside by the Assistant Registrar. | |
| Petition of Course No 3 of 2005 was filed by the firm. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting aside of statutory demands
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to set aside the statutory demands.
- Category: Procedural
- Validity of counterclaim, set-off, or cross demand
- Outcome: The court found that there was a genuine triable issue as to whether there was a valid counterclaim, set-off or cross demand under the bills.
- Category: Substantive
- Agreement as to costs
- Outcome: The court found that there was no meeting of minds, even if both the requirements set out in s 111 of the LPA are satisfied.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 2 SLR 651
- Partnership versus sole proprietorship
- Outcome: The court reached no final determination on whether the firm is in reality a partnership or sole proprietorship.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of statutory demands
9. Cause of Actions
- Recovery of debt
10. Practice Areas
- Bankruptcy Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd v Schenker Singapore (Pte) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 651 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements under s 111 of the Legal Profession Act for agreements as to costs for contentious businesses to be in writing and signed by the client and whether emails satisfy the definition of writing. |
| Re A Debtor, No 991 of 1962 | N/A | Yes | [1963] 1 WLR 51 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a debtor's counterclaim, set-off, or cross demand must be 'genuine' to warrant setting aside a statutory demand. |
| Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the debtor’s claim had to be valid and bona fide, spurious claims being insufficient to warrant the setting aside of a statutory demand. |
| Goh Chin Soon v Vickers Capital Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 728 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the value of the debtor’s counterclaim, set-off or cross demand also had to equal or exceed the debt in the statutory demand. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inherent power of the court to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court. |
| Wong Kwei Cheong v ABN-AMRO Bank NV | N/A | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 594 | Singapore | Cited regarding the function of the court in determining the applications to set aside the statutory demands, to not adjudicate upon the merits of the respondents’ counterclaim, set-off or cross demand. |
| Chor Pee and Partners v Wee Soon Kim Anthony | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 101 | Singapore | Cited regarding the respondent himself did not accept there was an agreement on legal fees for [the firm’s] or LCP’s conduct of the Suit. |
| Davis v Davis | N/A | Yes | [1894] 1 Ch 393 | N/A | Cited regarding the receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in it. |
| Chua Ka Seng v Boonchai Sompolpong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 482 | Singapore | Cited regarding although the respondent in that case was a “salaried partner” remunerated by a 20% share of the net profits of the firm, he nonetheless had no rights of equity participation in the firm and was not a partner in the true sense of the word. |
| Stekel v Ellice | N/A | Yes | [1973] 1 WLR 191 | N/A | Cited regarding it is “impossible to say that as a matter of law a salaried partner is or is not necessarily a partner in the true sense”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed) |
| rr 97 Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed) |
| rr 98(1) Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed) |
| rr 98(2) Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 92 r 4 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 62 Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 118 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 111 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 2 Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7 Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 2 Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 8(1) Electronic Transactions Act (Cap 88, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 1(1) Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 2(3) Partnership Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Statutory demand
- Counterclaim
- Set-off
- Cross demand
- Bills of costs
- Partnership
- Sole proprietorship
- Genuine triable issue
- Agreement as to costs
15.2 Keywords
- Bankruptcy Act
- Statutory demand
- Counterclaim
- Legal fees
- Partnership
- Sole proprietorship
16. Subjects
- Bankruptcy
- Insolvency
- Legal Costs
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Insolvency Law
- Bankruptcy
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure