AmBank v Raymond Yong: Enforcement of Foreign Judgment and Bankruptcy Application

In AmBank (M) Berhad v Raymond Yong Kim Yoong, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal by Raymond Yong Kim Yoong against the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow AmBank's application for a bankruptcy order against him. The application was based on a Malaysian judgment obtained against Yong in 1988 and registered in Singapore in 1994. Tan Lee Meng J allowed the appeal, holding that AmBank could not pursue the bankruptcy application because it had not obtained leave of court to enforce the judgment, as required by the Rules of Court, given the time elapsed since the judgment's registration.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Bankruptcy

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding the enforcement of a Malaysian judgment and a subsequent bankruptcy application. The court allowed the appeal, finding the bankruptcy application invalid.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AmBank (M) BerhadApplicant, RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLostSivakumar Murugaiyan, Parveen Kaur Nagpal
Raymond Yong Kim YoongRespondent, AppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWonRoderick E Martin, Trinel Chakraborty

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Roderick E MartinMartin & Partners
Trinel ChakrabortyMartin & Partners
Sivakumar MurugaiyanMadhavan Partnership
Parveen Kaur NagpalMadhavan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Malaysia Borneo Finance Corporation (MBFC) obtained judgment against Raymond Yong Kim Yoong in Malaysia in 1988.
  2. The judgment was for failing to honor obligations under a personal guarantee.
  3. MBFC changed its name to MBF Finance Berhad and subsequently to AmBank (M) Berhad.
  4. The Malaysian judgment was registered in Singapore on 12 October 1994.
  5. AmBank served a statutory demand on Raymond Yong Kim Yoong on 18 September 2006.
  6. Bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against Raymond Yong Kim Yoong on 10 October 2006.
  7. More than six years had lapsed since the registration of the Malaysian judgment in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. AmBank (M) Berhad v Raymond Yong Kim Yoong, B2703/2006, RA 38/2007, [2007] SGHC 172

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Malaysian judgment obtained against Raymond Yong Kim Yoong
Malaysian judgment registered in Singapore
Statutory demand served on Raymond Yong Kim Yoong
Bankruptcy proceedings instituted against Raymond Yong Kim Yoong
Raymond Yong Kim Yoong filed Notice of Objection and supporting affidavit
Hearing of counsel for the parties
Hearing of counsel for the parties
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
    • Outcome: The court held that AmBank was required to obtain leave of court under O 46 r 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court before proceeding with the bankruptcy application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Leave of court requirement
      • Time limitations for enforcement
  2. Bankruptcy Application Requirements
    • Outcome: The court held that the debt must be payable by virtue of a judgment or award which is enforceable by execution in Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Debt enforceable by execution
      • Compliance with Bankruptcy Act

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Bankruptcy Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Guarantee
  • Bankruptcy Application

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Medical Equipment Credit Pte Ltd v Sim Kiok Lan AliceCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 70SingaporeCited to emphasize that the underlying foundation of a bankruptcy petition is the inability of the debtor to pay a debt which satisfies the requirements of s 61 of the Bankruptcy Act.
Re A Bankruptcy NoticeN/AYes[1898] 1 QB 383EnglandCited to support the principle that an application to make a judgment debtor bankrupt does not involve the execution of a judgment.
In Re IdeN/AYes(1886) LR 17 QBD 755EnglandCited for the principle that a judgment creditor must have a judgment upon which execution could go immediately unless it was stayed, before a bankruptcy notice could be issued.
In Re WoodallN/AYes(1884) LR 13 QBD 479EnglandCited for the principle that leave to present a bankruptcy notice is required where more than six years have lapsed since the date of the judgment in question.
Re Solid H Gold Engineering WorksN/AYes[1988] SLR 757SingaporeCited to show that the English position on the effect of the words “execution thereon not having been stayed” was followed in Singapore when the old Bankruptcy Act was in force.
Ramnani v Personal Representatives of the Estate of Vaswani, deceased (No 2)N/ANo[1994] 2 SLR 750SingaporeCited to highlight the doubt that leave will be granted to enforce a judgment where the right of action upon the judgment has become time-barred.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Foreign judgment
  • Bankruptcy application
  • Enforcement of judgment
  • Leave of court
  • Statutory demand
  • Execution of judgment
  • Limitation period

15.2 Keywords

  • bankruptcy
  • foreign judgment
  • enforcement
  • Singapore
  • Malaysian judgment

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Civil Procedure
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Insolvency Law
  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Foreign Judgments Enforcement