Agus Anwar v Gainsford Capital Ltd: Setting Aside Statutory Demand for Disputed Debt

In the Singapore High Court case of Agus Anwar v Gainsford Capital Ltd, Lee Seiu Kin J. dismissed Gainsford Capital Ltd's appeal against the assistant registrar's decision to set aside a statutory demand served on Agus Anwar. The court found that the debt, totaling US$29.84 million, was disputed on substantial grounds, relating to agreements for the transfer of shares in a company owning a coal concession and the procurement of a US$200 million loan. The court determined that there was a valid issue as to whether Gainsford was in breach of its obligations under the First Agreement.

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

The High Court set aside a statutory demand against Agus Anwar by Gainsford Capital Ltd, finding the underlying debt disputed on substantial grounds.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Agus AnwarPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWonNg Soon Kai, Mario Tjong
Gainsford Capital LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostKelvin Tan Teck San, Natasha Nur Bte Sulaiman

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng Soon KaiNg Chong & Hue LLC
Mario TjongNg Chong & Hue LLC
Kelvin Tan Teck SanDrew & Napier LLC
Natasha Nur Bte SulaimanDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Agus Anwar owned all shares in Shining Hope Pte Ltd, which controlled PT RBH, an Indonesian company with a coal concession.
  2. Gainsford Capital Ltd and Agus Anwar entered into the First Agreement for the transfer of 70% of Shining Hope's shares to Gainsford.
  3. Gainsford was to make Initial Payments of US$15m to Agus Anwar under the First Agreement.
  4. Gainsford was to help obtain a US$200m Non Recourse loan for PT RBH, from which the Initial Payments would be deducted.
  5. The US$200m loan was not obtained.
  6. Gainsford claimed repayment of US$29.84m from Agus Anwar under the First and Second Agreements.
  7. Agus Anwar claimed he procured a US$180m loan facility from Deutsche Bank, but Gainsford did not agree to the terms.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Agus Anwar v Gainsford Capital Ltd, Originating Summons Bankruptcy No 27 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 300 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 5

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Statutory demand served on the plaintiff by the defendant
Hearing before the assistant registrar
Appeal dismissed
First Agreement dated
Second Agreement dated
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting Aside Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court upheld the decision to set aside the statutory demand.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Debt disputed on substantial grounds
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was a valid issue as to whether Gainsford was in breach of its obligations under the First Agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to obtain loan
      • Unreasonable withholding of approval

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside Statutory Demand
  2. Repayment of Debt

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Debt Recovery

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Statutory Demand
  • Heads of Agreement
  • Cooperation Agreement
  • Non Recourse Loan
  • Coal Concession
  • Breach of Contract

15.2 Keywords

  • Bankruptcy
  • Statutory Demand
  • Debt
  • Contract
  • Loan
  • Coal
  • Singapore
  • High Court

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Contract Law
  • Debt Recovery

17. Areas of Law

  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Contract Law