Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee: Bankruptcy Act, Statutory Demands & Solicitors' Costs

In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the decision to set aside statutory demands issued under s 62 of the Bankruptcy Act. The appellant, Wee Soon Kim Anthony, had issued the demands to Lim Chor Pee and his son, Marc Lim, for outstanding loans. The respondents claimed a set-off based on unpaid legal fees. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that there were triable issues regarding the validity of the counterclaim and the nature of the partnership between Lim Chor Pee and his son.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 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 under s 62 of the Bankruptcy Act. The court considered counterclaims, set-offs, and the validity of solicitors' bills.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wee Soon Kim AnthonyAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lim Chor PeeRespondentIndividualApplication to set aside statutory demand grantedWonAndre Arul, Ling Leong Hui
Marc LimRespondentIndividualApplication to set aside statutory demand grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Judith PrakashJudgeNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Andre ArulArul Chew and Partners
Ling Leong HuiArul Chew and Partners

4. Facts

  1. The appellant served statutory demands on the respondent and his son for outstanding loans.
  2. The respondent and his son were partners in the law firm of M/s Chor Pee & Partners.
  3. The firm acted for the appellant in a negligence and misrepresentation action against a bank.
  4. The appellant extended a loan to the firm and a personal loan to the respondent.
  5. The firm issued bills to the appellant for professional services rendered.
  6. The respondent and his son filed originating summonses to set aside the statutory demands.
  7. The assistant registrar granted the applications to set aside the statutory demands.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Lim Chor Pee, CA 62/2005, [2006] SGCA 8

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Action filed in Suit No 834 of 2001
Civil Appeal No 114 of 2002 filed
Statutory demands served by the appellant
Firm issued four bills to the appellant
Three originating summonses in bankruptcy filed
Firm issued a tax invoice for work done in Civil Appeal No 114 of 2002
Applications by the respondent and Marc Lim granted by the assistant registrar
Appeals to the High Court dismissed by Lai Kew Chai J
Application to have the five invoices taxed by the Registrar granted
Civil Appeal No 43 of 2005 held that the firm and the appellant had agreed to fix the fee
Four tax invoices came up for taxation by the assistant registrars
V K Rajah J reduced the second to fourth invoices
Appeal heard and dismissed
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court found that there were triable issues regarding the validity of the statutory demand.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Existence of valid counterclaim
      • Set-off
      • Cross demand
  2. Agreement as to Costs
    • Outcome: The court found that there was a triable issue as to whether there was an agreement to cap the fees for handling S 834/2001.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Capping of fees
      • Meeting of minds
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] SGCA 53
  3. Partnership Status
    • Outcome: The court found that there was a triable issue as to whether the firm was a sole proprietorship or a partnership.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sole proprietorship
      • Salaried partner
      • Equity participation
    • Related Cases:
      • [1973] 1 WLR 191

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Bankruptcy Order
  2. Recovery of Debt

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Debt

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Chor Pee & PartnersCourt of AppealYes[2005] SGCA 53SingaporeThe court relied on this case to determine whether there was an agreement between the firm and the appellant to cap the fees for handling S 834/2001 at $275,000.
In re A Debtor, No 991 of 1962N/AYes[1963] 1 WLR 51N/AThe court referred to this case to explain the meaning of 'genuine' in the context of a cross-claim.
Re Debtors (Nos 4449 and 4450 of 1998)N/AYes[1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 149N/AThe court cited this case to support the view that a trumped-up dispute cannot constitute a 'triable issue'.
Ratna Ammal v Tan Chow SooFederal CourtYes[1971] 1 MLJ 277MalaysiaThe court distinguished this case, noting that the issue there was different from the instant case.
Stekel v ElliceN/AYes[1973] 1 WLR 191N/AThe court cited this case to define the term 'salaried partner'.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rule 97(1) of the Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed)
Rule 98(2)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Statutory demand
  • Counterclaim
  • Set-off
  • Triable issue
  • Partnership
  • Salaried partner
  • Tax invoice
  • Bankruptcy Act

15.2 Keywords

  • bankruptcy
  • statutory demand
  • solicitor
  • costs
  • counterclaim
  • set-off
  • partnership

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Insolvency
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Insolvency Law
  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law