PT Bakrie Investindo v Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1: Meaning of 'Execution' under Order 67 Rule 10(2) of the Rules of Court

In PT Bakrie Investindo v Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether an examination of judgment debtor proceedings (EJD) falls within the meaning of 'execution' under Order 67 Rule 10(2) of the Rules of Court. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that an EJD is not a mode of execution but rather a means of gathering information to determine the appropriate mode of enforcement. The court ordered the appellant to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondent.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether examination of judgment debtor proceedings (EJD) falls under 'execution' in Order 67 Rule 10(2). The court dismissed the appeal, holding EJD is not a mode of execution.

1.7 Decision Date

24 September 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
PT Bakrie Investindo	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Suresh Damodara of Damodara Hazra LLP
Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership	Respondent	Partnership	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Emmanuel Duncan Chua of Drew & Napier LLC Hri Kumar Nair of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Judith Prakash	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Suresh Damodara	Damodara Hazra LLP
Emmanuel Duncan Chua	Drew & Napier LLC
Hri Kumar Nair	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

PT Bakrie Investindo underwrote US$50m worth of guaranteed notes issued by one of its subsidiaries in 1996.
The subsidiary was unable to make good on those notes at maturity.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership purchased US$2m of the distressed notes in 2009.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership commenced proceedings on the guarantee in the Commercial Court of England and Wales.
Judgment was entered in the Respondent’s favour on 17 February 2011 for US$2m with interest.
The UK Judgment was registered as a judgment of the High Court of Singapore on 18 July 2011.
The Respondent obtained an order to examine Robertus Bismarka Kurniawan as to the Appellant’s assets.

5. Formal Citations

PT Bakrie Investindo v Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership, Civil Appeal No 1 of 2013, [2013] SGCA 51

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1996-01-01	PT Bakrie Investindo underwrote US$50m worth of guaranteed notes issued by one of its subsidiaries.
2009-11-16	Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership purchased US$2m of the distressed notes from a prior holder.
2009-12-14	Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership commenced proceedings on the Appellant’s guarantee in the Commercial Court of England and Wales.
2011-02-17	Judgment was entered in the Respondent’s favour for the sum of US$2m with interest to be assessed.
2011-06-10	Default costs totalling £205,327.98 were also awarded.
2011-07-18	The UK Judgment was registered as a judgment of the High Court of Singapore pursuant to s 3 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act.
2012-08-31	The Appellant applied to set aside both the Registration Order and the EJD Order.
2012-11-21	The assistant registrar dismissed the Appellant’s application for the examination to be adjourned.
2012-12-17	The Appellant’s appeal against the AR’s decision was dismissed by the Judge below.
2013-01-20	The GD was issued.
2013-09-25	The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Interpretation of 'Execution'
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the word 'execution' in Order 67 Rule 10(2) of the Rules of Court does not include an examination of judgment debtor proceedings (EJD).
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 2 SLR 429
  - [1996] 1 SLR(R) 24
Interlocutory Application
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the application before the Judge was an interlocutory application which did not finally determine any of the Appellant’s claims under the Setting Aside proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
  - [2013] 3 SLR 354
  - [2013] 2 SLR 880

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Examination of Judgment Debtor

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Guarantee

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

Finance
Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 429	Singapore	The judgment under appeal, which held that an EJD does not come within the meaning of 'execution' for the purposes of O 67 r 10(2).
Republic of Costa Rica v Strousberg	English Chancery Division	Yes	Republic of Costa Rica v Strousberg (1880) 16 Ch D 8	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an EJD order does not, in and of itself, constitute a mode of execution of a judgment.
Fagot v Gaches	English Court of Appeal	Yes	Fagot v Gaches [1943] 1 KB 10	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an EJD order does not, in and of itself, constitute a mode of execution of a judgment.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Thye Nam Loong (S) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1994] SGHC 262	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an EJD order does not, in and of itself, constitute a mode of execution of a judgment.
Re Sassoon Ezekiel	Straits Settlements	Yes	[1933] MLJ 245	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an EJD order does not, in and of itself, constitute a mode of execution of a judgment.
Re Cheah Theam Swee, ex parte Equiticorp Finance Group Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 24	Singapore	Distinguished from the present case; Cheah Theam Swee held that a bankruptcy notice falls within the meaning of 'execution' under s 3(3)(b) of the RECJA.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 525	Singapore	Cited for the principle of interlocutory application.
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 354	Singapore	Cited for the principle of interlocutory application.
OpenNet Pte Ltd v Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 880	Singapore	Cited for the principle of interlocutory application.
Sucden Financial Ltd v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd	English High Court	Yes	Sucden Financial Ltd v Fluxo-Cane Overseas Ltd [2009] EWHC 3555 (QB)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an EJD order can be obtained even where the enforcement of the judgment has been stayed.
Re Tan Patrick, ex parte Walter Peak Resorts Ltd (in receivership)	High Court	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 379	Singapore	Discusses whether a bankruptcy notice fell within the purview of the word “execution” in s 3(3) of the RECJA.
PP v Low Kok Heng	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 183	Singapore	Cited for the principle of purposive interpretation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 67 r 10(2)	Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264)	Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Execution
Examination of Judgment Debtor
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
Interlocutory Application

15.2 Keywords

execution
examination of judgment debtor
EJD
Rules of Court
RECJA
REFJA
interlocutory application

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	90
Civil Procedure	75
Contract Law	25
Private International Law	15
Arbitration	10

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Enforcement of Judgments
Interpretation of Statutes