Tang Yong Kiat Rickie v Sinesinga Sdn Bhd: Bankruptcy Order Annulment Dispute

In Tang Yong Kiat Rickie v Sinesinga Sdn Bhd, the Singapore High Court addressed the plaintiff's application to annul a Singapore bankruptcy order. The plaintiff, already bankrupt in Malaysia, argued that the Singapore order was improperly made, that distribution proceedings were pending in Malaysia, and that a majority of creditors were Malaysian. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Chan Wei Sern Paul, dismissed the application, finding no inequity in concurrent bankruptcies and no compelling reason to annul the Singapore order. The court found that the plaintiff had assets in Singapore at the time the Singapore bankruptcy order was made.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Bankruptcy

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court refused to annul a bankruptcy order, finding no inequity in concurrent bankruptcies in Singapore and Malaysia.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Second defendantDefendantIndividualOpposition to Application UpheldWon
Third defendantDefendantIndividualOpposition to Application UpheldWon
Fourth defendantDefendantIndividualOpposition to Application UpheldWon
Tang Yong Kiat RickiePlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Sinesinga Sdn Bhd (transferee to part of the assets of United Merchant Finance Bhd)DefendantCorporationOpposition to Application UpheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Wei Sern PaulAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Matthew TeoRajah & Tann LLP
Ryan LohRajah & Tann LLP
Chia Foo YeowLoo & Partners LLP
Chua Beng ChyeRajah & Tann LLP
Cherie TanRajah & Tann LLP
Raelene PereiraRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff is a Singapore citizen with business activities in Malaysia.
  2. Two judgments were rendered against the plaintiff in Malaysia.
  3. The rights to these judgments were transferred to the first defendant.
  4. The first defendant petitioned for the plaintiff to be adjudged bankrupt in Malaysia and Singapore.
  5. The plaintiff was declared a bankrupt in both Malaysia and Singapore.
  6. The second, third, and fourth defendants were appointed as private trustees in Singapore.
  7. The plaintiff sought to annul the Singapore bankruptcy order.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tang Yong Kiat Rickie v Sinesinga Sdn Bhd (transferee to part of the assets of United Merchant Finance Bhd) and others, OSB No 84 of 2013, [2014] SGHCR 6

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff resided mostly in Malaysia.
Assets of United Merchant Finance Berhad, including judgments against the plaintiff, were transferred to the first defendant.
Malaysian bankruptcy order obtained against the plaintiff.
First defendant sought a bankruptcy order in Singapore.
Plaintiff was adjudged a bankrupt in Singapore.
Second, third, and fourth defendants were appointed as private trustees.
OSB No 84 of 2013 filed.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Annulment of Bankruptcy Order
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for annulment under section 123(1) of the Bankruptcy Act.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Grounds for annulment
      • Discretion of the court
  2. Sufficient Cause for Dismissal of Bankruptcy Application
    • Outcome: The court held that the failure to obtain leave from Malaysian courts did not constitute sufficient cause to dismiss the Singapore bankruptcy application.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with foreign bankruptcy rules
      • Effect of prior foreign bankruptcy order
  3. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court held that commencing the Singapore bankruptcy action while participating in the Malaysian bankruptcy regime did not, without more, constitute an abuse of process.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Circumventing foreign bankruptcy regime
      • Seeking unlawful priority over other creditors

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Annulment of Singapore bankruptcy order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application to annul bankruptcy order

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Latifah Bte Hussainsa, ex p Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau PinangHigh CourtYes[2005] 2 MLJ 290MalaysiaCited regarding the debtor having a reasonable prospect of being able to repay the debt.
Re MS WardHigh CourtYes[1933] MLJ 69MalaysiaCited regarding the debtor having a reasonable prospect of being able to repay the debt.
Stephen Wong Leong Kiong v HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd (formerly known as Hongkong Bank (M) Bhd)High CourtYes[2011] 4 MLJ 207MalaysiaCited regarding the date of the act of bankruptcy being wrongly stated.
Sama Credit & Leasing Sdn Bhd v Pegawai Pemegang Harta, MalaysiaHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 MLJ 274MalaysiaCited regarding a subsisting bankruptcy order made against the debtor in the same jurisdiction and the creditor not acting in good faith in bringing a subsequent bankruptcy petition.
Re VictoriaQueen's BenchYes[1894] 2 Q.B. 387United KingdomCited regarding the judgment on which the debt is founded being unsound, unfair or in some manner defective.
Re DavenportHigh CourtYes[1963] 1 W.L.R. 817United KingdomCited regarding the judgment on which the debt is founded being unsound, unfair or in some manner defective.
Re StrayCourt of AppealYes(1867) 22 Ch. App. 374United KingdomCited regarding the creditor being estopped from petitioning for bankruptcy.
Re A Debtor (No. 11 of 1935)High CourtYes[1936] Ch. 165United KingdomCited regarding the creditor being estopped from petitioning for bankruptcy.
Re RobinsonHigh CourtYes(1883) 22 Ch.D. 816United KingdomCited regarding it being certain, as opposed to probable, that the debtor has no assets nor is there any hope of assets to accrue in future.
Re Ross (a bankrupt) (No 2)UnknownYes[2000] BPIR 636United KingdomCited regarding the effect of the bankruptcy order being to stifle a claim, with a real prospect of success, which the bankrupt might otherwise have been able to pursue against the petitioning and only creditor to which the debtor was indebted.
Bank of Scotland v BennettCourt of AppealYes[2004] EWCA Civ 988United KingdomCited regarding there being or having been an abuse of the bankruptcy process by the creditor.
Re Painter, ex p PainterQueen's BenchYes[1895] 1 QB 85United KingdomCited regarding an abuse of process.
Re Bright, ex p Wingfield and BlewKing's BenchYes[1903] 1 KB 735United KingdomCited regarding the bankruptcy order being made on the basis of evidence which turned out to be untrue.
Re Skelton, ex p CoatesChancery DivisionYes(1877) 5 CH D 979United KingdomCited regarding the bankruptcy order being made under a defective petition.
Re Stanger, ex p GeiselChancery DivisionYes(1882) 22 CH D 436United KingdomCited regarding the debtor being dead at the time the proceedings were commenced.
Re Davenport, ex p Bankrupt v Eric Street Properties LtdUnknownYes[1963] 2 All ER 850United KingdomCited regarding the debtor being a minor and the debt not legally enforceable against him.
Re Noble, ex p Bankrupt v Official ReceiverChancery DivisionYes[1965] Ch 129United KingdomCited regarding the debtor being a minor and the debt not legally enforceable against him.
Re Peh Kong Wan, ex p United Malayan Banking Corp BhdHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 MLJ 292MalaysiaCited regarding the debtor not being domiciled in the jurisdiction at the time the bankruptcy order was made.
Strongmaster Ltd v Kaye & OrsUnknownYes[2004] BPIR 335United KingdomCited regarding the presentation of a bankruptcy petition for the collateral purpose of obtaining some advantage which will result from the debtor being made a bankrupt is generally not conceived as an abuse of process, so long as the petition was well-founded and the recovery of debt remains the primary goal.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian TeckCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited regarding the determination of an abuse of process requiring the balancing of allowing genuine claims and disallowing oppressive litigation.
Re A Debtor (No. 737 of 1928)Court of AppealYes[1929] CH 362United KingdomCited regarding difficulties arising in carrying out bankruptcy proceedings in multiple countries being matters to be dealt with in the course of bankruptcy proceedings.
Re McCullochChancery DivisionYes(1880) 14 Ch.D. 716United KingdomCited regarding the phenomenon of multiple bankruptcy orders emanating from separate jurisdictions.
Re A Debtor (No. 199 of 1922)Chancery DivisionYes[1922] 2 Ch 470United KingdomCited regarding the phenomenon of multiple bankruptcy orders emanating from separate jurisdictions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy ActSingapore
Bankruptcy ActSingapore
Bankruptcy ActSingapore
Bankruptcy ActSingapore
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bankruptcy ActMalaysia
Bankruptcy Act 1967 (Act 360)Malaysia
Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6)Hong Kong
Insolvency Act 1986United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bankruptcy order
  • Annulment
  • Malaysian bankruptcy
  • Singapore bankruptcy
  • Private trustees
  • Proofs of debt
  • Abuse of process
  • Sufficient cause
  • Creditors
  • Distribution of estate

15.2 Keywords

  • Bankruptcy
  • Annulment
  • Singapore
  • Malaysia
  • Cross-border insolvency

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bankruptcy90
Cross-Border Insolvency60
Foreign Law50
Civil Procedure30

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Insolvency
  • Civil Procedure