Re Lee Kim Kiat: Appeal Against Rejection of Proof of Debt in Bankruptcy

The claimant appealed the decision of the assistant registrar to dismiss his application to reverse the Official Assignee's rejection of his proof of debt in the amount of $300,000 in the bankruptcy of Lee Kim Kiat. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. The court noted the claimant's tardiness in filing the proof of debt and changing his position regarding the disbursements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Bankruptcy

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against the rejection of a proof of debt in the bankruptcy of Lee Kim Kiat. The court dismissed the appeal due to lack of evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lee Kim KiatBankruptIndividual
ClaimantApplicant, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zero NalponNalpon & Co

4. Facts

  1. LKK was made a bankrupt on 23 March 1999.
  2. The claimant filed a proof of debt for $420,000 on 10 May 2006.
  3. The proof of debt was supported by two notes signed by LKK.
  4. The OA admitted the claimant’s proof in relation to the $120,000 debt but not that for $300,000.
  5. The claimant sought to substantiate his claim for $300,000 by listing out three disbursements.
  6. LKK produced documents evidencing inter-company loans from NACL to GSPL.
  7. The claimant's position concerning disbursements changed after LKK produced the NACL Documents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Lee Kim Kiat, B 50/1999, RA 600003/2007, [2007] SGHC 146

6. Timeline

DateEvent
LKK was made a bankrupt
First note signed by LKK
Second note signed by LKK
Claimant filed proof of debt with the OA
First meeting with the OA
M/s Nalpon & Co wrote to the OA
Deadline for claimant to produce documents
Further extension granted by the OA
Claimant produced six documents to support his proof of debt
LKK was discharged from her bankruptcy with conditions
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Proof of Debt
    • Outcome: The court found that the claimant failed to furnish sufficient evidence to support his proof of debt.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sufficiency of evidence
      • Tardiness in filing proof of debt

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Reversal or variation of the OA’s rejection of the claimant’s proof of debt

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Insolvency

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Ice-Mack Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1989] SLR 876SingaporeCited to support the proposition that the claimant must produce proper evidence of disbursements when the validity of the claim is challenged.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Proof of debt
  • Bankruptcy
  • Official Assignee
  • Promissory Note
  • Acknowledgement of Debt
  • Disbursements
  • Inter-company loans

15.2 Keywords

  • Bankruptcy
  • Proof of Debt
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Appeal
  • Rejection
  • Official Assignee

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bankruptcy85
Proof of Debt70
Official Assignee60
Promissory Note40
Acknowledgement of Debt35
Contract Law30
Guarantee20
Affidavits15

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Debt Recovery