Motorola v Uzan: Revocation of Powers of Attorney & Receivership Order
In Motorola Solutions Credit Co LLC v Kemal Uzan and others, the Singapore High Court addressed the revocation of powers of attorney granted by Haj Capital Pte Limited and Levant One Investments Pte Limited, companies placed under receivership. The court granted an order to revoke all powers of attorney with effect from the date of the Receivership Order, emphasizing that the continuation of these powers was inconsistent with the purpose of appointing receivers to preserve the companies' assets. The court also addressed whether notice of revocation was required to be given to the attorneys before the revocation could be effective.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Order granted to revoke powers of attorney with effect from the date of the Receivership Order.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment regarding the revocation of powers of attorney in a receivership case involving Motorola and Kemal Uzan.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motorola Solutions Credit Co LLC | Plaintiff | Corporation | Order granted to revoke powers of attorney | Won | Derek Tan, Tan Lay Joan, George Calhourn |
| Kemal Uzan | Defendant | Individual | Order granted to revoke powers of attorney | Lost | |
| Haj Capital Pte Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Order granted to revoke powers of attorney | Lost | Abraham Vergis, Kimberley Leng, Jaya Anil Kumar |
| Levant One Investments Pte Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Order granted to revoke powers of attorney | Lost | Abraham Vergis, Kimberley Leng, Jaya Anil Kumar |
| Colin Alan Cook | Defendant | Individual | Order granted to revoke powers of attorney | Lost | Abraham Vergis, Kimberley Leng, Jaya Anil Kumar |
| Andrew Grimmett | Other | Individual | Order granted to revoke powers of attorney | Won | Terence Seah, Tan Su Hui |
| Tam Chee Chong | Other | Individual | Order granted to revoke powers of attorney | Won | Terence Seah, Tan Su Hui |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Derek Tan | WongPartnership LLP |
| Tan Lay Joan | WongPartnership LLP |
| George Calhourn | WongPartnership LLP |
| Abraham Vergis | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Kimberley Leng | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Jaya Anil Kumar | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Terence Seah | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
| Tan Su Hui | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
4. Facts
- Receivers were appointed over the assets of Haj Capital and Levant One.
- The Receivers sought an order to revoke all powers of attorney granted by Haj Capital and Levant One.
- Cook, a director of Haj Capital and Levant One, initially did not oppose the revocation application.
- The Receivers learned about the powers of attorney after their appointment.
- The Receivers had concerns about the exercise of powers of attorney by certain attorneys.
- The court found that the continuation of the powers of attorney was inconsistent with the purpose of the receivership.
5. Formal Citations
- Motorola Solutions Credit Co LLC v Kemal Uzan and others, Suit No 1046 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 218
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit filed by the plaintiff to enforce judgments. | |
| Receivership Order issued. | |
| Receivers filed summons to revoke powers of attorney. | |
| Order granted to revoke powers of attorney. | |
| Request for further arguments on the effective date of the Revocation of P/A Order. | |
| Summons filed for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Leave to appeal granted. | |
| Defendants signed a deed confirming part of the debt due to Polkaco. | |
| Settlement agreement between Polkaco and defendants. | |
| Extraordinary general assembly of JDC to replace the first liquidator. |
7. Legal Issues
- Revocation of Powers of Attorney
- Outcome: The court ordered the revocation of powers of attorney to be effective from the date of the Receivership Order.
- Category: Substantive
- Effective Date of Revocation
- Outcome: The court ruled that the revocation was effective from the date of the Receivership Order, not the date of the revocation order.
- Category: Procedural
- Notice of Revocation
- Outcome: The court held that the effectiveness of the revocation was not dependent on notice being sent to or received by the attorney.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to revoke powers of attorney
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Receivership
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Receivership
- Power of Attorney
- Revocation
- Receivers
- Assets
- Liquidator
15.2 Keywords
- receivership
- power of attorney
- revocation
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Insolvency
- Agency
17. Areas of Law
- Insolvency Law
- Agency Law
- Civil Procedure