Deutsche Bank v Lam Chi Kin David: Bankruptcy Proceedings Stay Pending Appeal
Deutsche Bank AG commenced bankruptcy proceedings against Lam Chi Kin David after he failed to comply with a statutory demand for payment of a judgment debt. Lam appealed against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant a conditional stay of the bankruptcy proceedings, arguing he lacked the financial means to provide the security ordered. The High Court varied the amount of security from $500,000 to $100,000, finding Lam's account of his finances unsatisfactory.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The amount of security was varied from $500,000 to $100,000.
1.3 Case Type
Bankruptcy
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Deutsche Bank initiated bankruptcy proceedings against Lam Chi Kin David. The court considered staying the proceedings pending Lam's appeal against a prior judgment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deutsche Bank AG | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Partial | Partial | Paul Ong Min-Tse |
Lam Chi Kin David | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Partial | Partial | Christopher Chong Chi Chuin, Jasmine Kok Pinn Xin |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Paul Ong Min-Tse | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
Christopher Chong Chi Chuin | MPillay |
Jasmine Kok Pinn Xin | MPillay |
4. Facts
- Deutsche Bank obtained a judgment against Lam Chi Kin David for US$1.135 million.
- Lam Chi Kin David appealed the High Court judgment.
- Deutsche Bank commenced bankruptcy proceedings against Lam Chi Kin David.
- Lam Chi Kin David applied for a stay of the bankruptcy proceedings.
- The Assistant Registrar granted a conditional stay, requiring Lam Chi Kin David to provide security of $500,000.
- Lam Chi Kin David claimed he lacked the financial means to provide the security.
- Lam Chi Kin David sold his Bencoolen property to finance legal costs.
- Lam Chi Kin David claimed his foreign currency deposits were wiped out due to financial turmoil.
5. Formal Citations
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Claim by David Lam Chi Kin against Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft dismissed; judgment granted for US$1.135 million in respect of the bank’s counterclaim. | |
Bankruptcy proceedings commenced against the appellant. | |
Appellant applied for the bankruptcy application to be set aside or for an unconditional stay. | |
Assistant Registrar granted a stay on condition that the appellant provide security for $500,000 by 4 June 2010. | |
Appellant filed affidavit stating he would liquidate assets to pay legal fees. | |
Appellant filed new affidavit in Hong Kong SAR. | |
Appellant sold the Bencoolen property for $1.05 million. | |
Amount in the AR’s order on security is varied from $500,000 to $100,000. | |
Court of Appeal will hear the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Bankruptcy Proceedings
- Outcome: The court varied the amount of security required for the stay of bankruptcy proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court admitted the new affidavit as it elaborated on the appellant’s alleged financial woes.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Stay of bankruptcy proceedings
- Setting aside bankruptcy application
9. Cause of Actions
- Failure to comply with statutory demand
10. Practice Areas
- Bankruptcy
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lee Kiang Leng Stanley v Lee Han Chew (trading as Joe Li Electrical Supplies) | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 151 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that section 64(1) allows the court to order security for the full amount or part of the judgment debt as a condition for staying bankruptcy proceedings. |
M V Yorke Motors (A firm) v Edwards | N/A | Yes | [1982] 1 WLR 444 | N/A | Cited to support the argument that impecuniosity is a factor the court may take into account in deciding whether it is just to order the provision of security. |
13. Applicable Rules
Rule Name |
---|
No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
---|---|
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20) | Singapore |
Bankruptcy Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bankruptcy proceedings
- Statutory demand
- Security for costs
- Dissipation of assets
- Impecuniosity
- Conditional stay
15.2 Keywords
- Bankruptcy
- Stay of proceedings
- Security for costs
- Appeal
- Financial means
16. Subjects
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Bankruptcy Law
- Civil Procedure