AmBank v Yong Kim Yoong: Enforceability of Foreign Judgments & Bankruptcy Proceedings
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal by AmBank (M) Bhd against Yong Kim Yoong Raymond regarding the enforceability of a Malaysian judgment registered in Singapore under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act. AmBank sought to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against Yong based on this judgment. The key legal issue was whether Section 61(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy Act required AmBank to obtain leave of court under Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court, given that more than six years had passed since the judgment's registration. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that AmBank was required to obtain leave before commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Bankruptcy
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal addresses whether a foreign judgment registered in Singapore requires leave of court before commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AmBank (M) Bhd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Sivakumar Murugaiyan, Parveen Kaur Nagpal |
| Yong Kim Yoong Raymond | Respondent | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Won | Roderick Edward Martin, Trinel C |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sivakumar Murugaiyan | Madhavan Partnership |
| Parveen Kaur Nagpal | Madhavan Partnership |
| Roderick Edward Martin | Martin & Partners |
| Trinel C | Martin & Partners |
4. Facts
- MBFC obtained judgment against YKY in Malaysia on 3 November 1988 for failure to honor obligations under a personal guarantee.
- The Malaysian Judgment was registered in Singapore on 12 October 1994 under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act.
- AmBank served a statutory demand on YKY on 18 September 2006.
- AmBank instituted bankruptcy proceedings against YKY on 10 October 2006.
- YKY objected to the bankruptcy application, arguing the Malaysian Judgment was time-barred and not enforceable by execution in Singapore.
- AmBank did not obtain leave of court under Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court before commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- AmBank (M) Bhd v Yong Kim Yoong Raymond, CA 156/2007, [2009] SGCA 5
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MBFC obtained judgment against YKY in Malaysia. | |
| Malaysian Judgment was registered in Singapore under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act. | |
| AmBank served a statutory demand on YKY. | |
| AmBank instituted bankruptcy proceedings against YKY. | |
| YKY filed his notice of objection and supporting affidavit. | |
| Bankruptcy application heard by an assistant registrar. | |
| Bankruptcy application heard by an assistant registrar. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Foreign Judgments
- Outcome: The court held that the registration of a foreign judgment does not mask the origins of the debt or change its character.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Registration of foreign judgments
- Effect of registration under RECJA
- Bankruptcy Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that Section 61(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy Act requires a judgment creditor of a registered foreign judgment of more than six years to obtain leave pursuant to Order 46 Rule 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court before commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirements for bankruptcy application
- Applicability of s 61(1)(d) of BA 2000
- Interpretation of 'enforceable by execution in Singapore'
- Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The court adopted a narrow interpretation of 'enforceable by execution in Singapore' in s 61(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Construction of s 61(1)(d) of BA 2000
- Legislative purpose of s 61(1)(d)
- Meaning of 'enforceable by execution in Singapore'
8. Remedies Sought
- Bankruptcy Order
- Debt Recovery
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guarantee
- Debt Recovery
10. Practice Areas
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Litigation
- Debt Recovery
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical Equipment Credit Pte Ltd v Sim Kiok Lan Alice | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 70 | Singapore | Cited to confirm that the inability to pay is the underlying foundation underpinning every bankruptcy application. |
| Re Cheah Theam Swee, ex p Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 76 | Singapore | Discusses the effect of registration under s 3(3)(a) of RECJA, stating that a registered judgment shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the registering court. |
| Re Tan Patrick, ex p Walter Peak Resorts Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 728 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that s 3(3)(a) of RECJA does not convert a foreign judgment, after registration, into a Singapore judgment. |
| Re Abrahamson | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (1978) 34 FLR 217 | Australia | Cited in Re Tan Patrick, ex p Walter Peak Resorts Ltd to support the view that s 3(3)(a) of RECJA does not transform a foreign judgment into a Singapore judgment. |
| In re Silber | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1915] 2 KB 317 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that insolvency proceedings are not technically considered to be proceedings to the actual execution or enforcement of a judgment. |
| In re A Company | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1915] 1 Ch 520 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that insolvency proceedings are not technically considered to be proceedings to the actual execution or enforcement of a judgment. |
| In re Parker Davies and Hughes Ld | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1953] 1 WLR 1349 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that insolvency proceedings are not technically considered to be proceedings to the actual execution or enforcement of a judgment. |
| In re A Debtor (No 50A-SD-1995) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] Ch 310 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that insolvency proceedings are not technically considered to be proceedings to the actual execution or enforcement of a judgment. |
| In re A Bankruptcy Notice | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1898] 1 QB 383 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an application to make a judgment debtor bankrupt does not involve the execution of a judgment. |
| AmBank (M) Berhad v Raymond Yong Kim Yoong | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR 441 | Singapore | The High Court decision that was appealed in this case. |
| In re North | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1895] 2 QB 264 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that bankruptcy law is a law of public social policy and affects the status of those who are brought under its operation in a very detrimental manner. |
| National Westminster Bank plc v Powney | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] Ch 339 | England and Wales | Cited in Duer v Frazer for the principle that the court would not, in general, extend time beyond the six years save where it is demonstrably just to do so. |
| BP Properties Ltd v Buckler | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] 2 EGLR 168 | England and Wales | Cited in Duer v Frazer for the principle that the court would not, in general, extend time beyond the six years save where it is demonstrably just to do so. |
| Duer v Frazer | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2001] 1 WLR 919 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that leave to extend time beyond the six-year period under the corresponding English provision will not be granted unless it is demonstrably just to do so. |
| Dipika Patel v Sarbjit Singh | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2002] EWCA Civ 1938 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the lapse of six years may, and will ordinarily, in itself justify refusing the judgment creditor permission to issue the writ of execution, unless the judgment creditor can justify the granting of permission by showing that the circumstances of his or her case takes it out of the ordinary. |
| Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2008] EWHC 801 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the lapse of six years after the judgment will ordinarily, in itself, justify refusing the judgment creditor permission to issue a writ of execution, unless the judgment creditor can justify the granting of permission by showing that the circumstances of his or her case takes it out of the ordinary. |
| Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] SCGA 48 | Singapore | Cited in passing. |
| Re Rasmachayana Sulistyo; ex parte The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 483 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the governing rules should be the Bankruptcy Rules, and only the Rules of Court expressly said to apply to bankruptcy proceedings in O 1 r 2(2) will apply to bankruptcy proceedings. |
| K-Rex Finance Ltd v Cheng Chih Cheng | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a change in name does not affect the rights or liabilities of the party. |
| MBf Finance Bhd v Ting Kah Kuong | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 MLJ 73 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a change in name does not affect the rights or liabilities of the party. |
| Re Amran bin Ahmad; ex p MBf Finance Bhd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 7 MLJ 477 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a change in name does not affect the rights or liabilities of the party. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Foreign Judgment
- Bankruptcy Proceedings
- Enforcement of Judgment
- Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
- Bankruptcy Act
- Rules of Court
- Leave of Court
- Enforceable by Execution
- Statutory Demand
- Registered Judgment
15.2 Keywords
- Foreign Judgment
- Bankruptcy
- Enforcement
- Singapore
- Malaysia
- Debt
- Execution
- Leave of Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Debt Recovery
- Foreign Judgments
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Bankruptcy Law
- Civil Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation
- Insolvency Law
- Foreign Judgments
- Enforcement of Judgments