Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG: Setting Aside Statutory Demand for Unpaid Costs

In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Wee Soon Kim Anthony against the decision to allow a statutory demand issued by UBS AG for unpaid costs. The costs arose from Suit No 834 of 2001 and related proceedings. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory demand complied with r 94(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules and that Wee had not rebutted the presumption of inability to pay his debts. The court ordered Wee to pay costs of $2,000 to UBS AG.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed an appeal to set aside a statutory demand for unpaid costs, ruling that the demand complied with bankruptcy rules and the debtor failed to rebut the presumption of inability to pay debts.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UBS AGRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
Wee Soon Kim AnthonyAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kabir SinghDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Wee was the plaintiff in Suit No 834 of 2001, and the bank was the defendant.
  2. Justice Kan Ting Chiu dismissed the action with costs on 8 December 2003.
  3. Wee appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs on 27 May 2004.
  4. A Registrar’s certificate dated 18 May 2005 was extracted, requiring Wee to pay the bank $766,588.51.
  5. Wee applied for leave to appeal against Kan J’s review of taxation on 4 May 2005.
  6. A statutory demand was issued on behalf of the bank based on Wee’s liability for unpaid costs plus interest.
  7. Wee applied to set aside the statutory demand on 16 August 2005.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG, OS B57/2005, RA 348/2005, [2006] SGHC 139

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit No 834 of 2001 filed by Wee against the bank
Action dismissed with costs by Justice Kan Ting Chiu
Wee appealed the dismissal of the action
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs
The bank filed its Bill of Costs No 286 of 2004 for the action
Bill of Costs No 286 of 2004 taxed
Wee applied for leave to appeal against Kan J’s review of taxation
Kan J reviewed BC 286
Registrar’s certificate extracted, requiring Wee to pay $766,588.51
Leave application heard by Kan J; Wee made oral application for recusal
Wee filed formal application for recusal
Statutory demand dated 2 August 2005 served on Wee
Wee applied to set aside the statutory demand
Recusal application dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500
Wee filed appeal without regard to s 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
High Court allowed the statutory demand to stand

7. Legal Issues

  1. Compliance with Bankruptcy Rules
    • Outcome: The court held that the statutory demand complied with r 94(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-compliance with r 94(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules
      • Omission to mention pending leave application
  2. Setting Aside Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court held that the discretion to set aside the statutory demand under r 98(2)(e) should not be exercised.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Discretion to set aside under r 98(2)(e) of the Bankruptcy Rules
      • Whether the demand ought to be set aside
  3. Rebuttal of Presumption of Inability to Pay Debts
    • Outcome: The court held that the debtor had not rebutted the presumption of inability to pay debts.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside Statutory Demand

9. Cause of Actions

  • Debt Recovery

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Everard v The Society of Lloyd’sHigh CourtYes[2003] BPIR 1286England and WalesCited for the proposition that a statutory demand should be set aside where there is a bona fide appeal pending that could result in a counterclaim, set-off, or cross demand exceeding the debt.
Shook Lin & Bok v Yeo Kian TeckHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR 16SingaporeCited to confirm that the Registrar’s certificate is conclusive evidence of the amount of legal fees properly due from the defendant to the plaintiff.
The Straits Times Press (1975) Ltd v Wong Chee KokHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 77SingaporeCited for the principle that a statutory demand must present a sufficiently detailed debt to enable the debtor to identify it.
In re A Debtor (No 1 of 1987)N/AYes[1989] 1 WLR 271England and WalesCited for the principle that the discretion to set aside a statutory demand should be exercised only where the consequences of not doing so would be unjust to the debtor.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed) r 94(4)(a)Singapore
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2002 Rev Ed) r 98(2)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 34(1)(c)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) Order 59 r 33Singapore
Rules of Court Order 56 r 2(2)Singapore
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed) s 62Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Statutory demand
  • Bankruptcy Rules
  • Unpaid costs
  • Registrar’s certificate
  • Leave application
  • Presumption of inability to pay debts

15.2 Keywords

  • statutory demand
  • bankruptcy
  • costs
  • insolvency

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bankruptcy80
Insolvency Law75
Costs70
Judgments and Orders60
Civil Procedure50

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Civil Procedure
  • Debt Recovery