Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport SDPR: Garnishee Order, Beneficial Ownership & Debt Determination
In Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute over the beneficial ownership of funds in garnishee proceedings. Westacre Investments Inc sought to garnish funds held in DnB Nor Bank ASA Singapore Branch, claiming they belonged to the judgment debtor, Yugoimport SDPR. Teleoptik-Ziroskopi, Zrak-Teslic, and Cajevec claimed beneficial ownership of the funds. The court found that the funds were beneficially owned by Yugoimport SDPR and made the provisional garnishee order against DnB Nor Bank ASA Singapore Branch absolute.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Provisional garnishee order against DnB Nor Bank ASA Singapore Branch made absolute.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court determines beneficial ownership of funds in garnishee proceedings. Judgment for Westacre Investments against Yugoimport SDPR.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (Also known as Jugoimport – SDPR) | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Westacre Investments Inc | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Deuteron (Asia) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Teleoptik-Ziroskopi | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Zrak-Teslic | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| DnB Nor Bank ASA Singapore Branch | Defendant | Corporation | Garnishee Order Absolute | Lost | |
| Cajevac (Previously Known as Rudi Cajavec) | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Edmund Leow | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Westacre Investments Inc prevailed in arbitration proceedings against Yugoimport SDPR in February 1994 for consultancy services.
- Westacre obtained a judgment in the English High Court for more than £41m in March 1998.
- Westacre uncovered evidence that Deuteron (Asia) Pte Ltd, Yugoimport SDPR’s subsidiary, maintained Yugoimport SDPR’s funds in bank accounts with DnB Nor Bank ASA Singapore Branch.
- As of March 2009, the funds in Deuteron’s accounts amounted to more than US$17m.
- Westacre applied to register the English judgment in Singapore on 5 October 2004 and obtained a Mareva injunction to freeze Deuteron’s accounts on 28 October 2004.
- The Other Parties claimed the funds belonged to them, asserting Yugoimport SDPR acted as their commission agent in a supply contract.
- Deuteron's financial statements from 1998 to 2008, a shareholders’ resolution in 1999, and an affidavit in November 2004 stated that the Advance belongs to the JD.
5. Formal Citations
- Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) and others, Originating Summons No 1311 of 2004, [2015] SGHC 143
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arbitration award made in favor of Westacre Investments Inc against Yugoimport SDPR | |
| Judgment obtained in the English High Court for more than £41m | |
| Application to register the English judgment in Singapore | |
| Mareva injunction obtained to freeze Deuteron’s accounts with the Bank | |
| Summonses filed for provisional garnishee orders against Deuteron and the Bank | |
| Yugoimport SDPR applied to set aside the registration of the English judgment | |
| Court of Appeal directed the JC to refer to the English courts the question of whether the English judgment remained enforceable | |
| Tomlinson J in Westacre Investments Inc (a company incorporated under the laws of Panama) v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 780 answered the question in the affirmative | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the JD’s application | |
| Affidavits filed by the Other Parties, JD and Deuteron | |
| Affidavits filed by the Other Parties, JD and Deuteron | |
| Applications to convert the garnishee proceedings to a writ action were dismissed | |
| The JD was granted one month to file further evidence but it missed the deadline | |
| The JD’s request for a time extension was refused | |
| Orders dismissing applications to convert garnishee proceedings to writ action confirmed | |
| Applications of the JD and the Other Parties to admit further evidence were dismissed | |
| High Court summarily determined that the funds belonged wholly and exclusively to the JD, and made the interim garnishee orders granted in April 2005 final | |
| Senior assistant registrar gave directions to the parties for trial | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part in Teleoptik-Ziroskopi v Westacre and directed a trial to resolve the disputes of fact | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Beneficial Ownership
- Outcome: The court found that the Other Parties failed to prove they had beneficial ownership of the funds in Deuteron's bank accounts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to create a trust
- Certainty of intention
- Tracing of funds
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 177
- Debt Due or Accruing Due
- Outcome: The court found that the funds in the Bank are beneficially owed to the JD, so the interim garnishee order against the Bank is to be made absolute.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- (1883) 11 QBD 518
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the JC has the legal burden of showing, on a balance of probabilities, that Deuteron and/or the Bank had a debt due or accruing due to the JD at the time that the interim orders were made. The Other Parties bear the legal burden of showing ownership of the funds.
- Category: Procedural
- Governing Law of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Supply Contract is governed by the law of the foreign buyer, the Commission Agreement is governed by Yugoslav law, and the Pre-Protocol and the Protocol are also governed by Yugoslav law.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491
8. Remedies Sought
- Garnishee Order
- Monetary Relief
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Garnishee Proceedings
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking
- Trusts
- Contract Disputes
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teleoptik-Ziroskopi and others v Westacre Investments Inc and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 177 | Singapore | Cited for recounting the case developments in the High Court and the Court of Appeal's decision to allow the appeals in part and set aside the order making the garnishee order absolute, directing a trial to resolve the disputes of fact. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v SY Technology Inc | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the stages to determine the governing law of a contract. |
| Westacre Investments Inc (a company incorporated under the laws of Panama) v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) | English High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 780 | England | Cited for the English court's affirmative answer to the question of whether the English judgment remained enforceable. |
| Webb v Stenton | N/A | Yes | (1883) 11 QBD 518 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a debt can be either equitable or legal in nature, although 'debts owing or accruing' must refer to an actual present debt. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 1(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 2 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 3 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 4 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 5 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 6(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 6(2) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, Rev Ed 1997) s 103(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, Rev Ed 1997) s 105 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, Rev Ed 1997) s 108 | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, Rev Ed 2006) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, Rev Ed 2006) s 402 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Garnishee Order
- Beneficial Ownership
- Commission Agency
- Trust
- Mareva Injunction
- Debt Due or Accruing Due
- Yugoslav Law
- Singapore Law
- Advance
- Protocol
- Sub-contractors
15.2 Keywords
- Garnishee
- Beneficial Ownership
- Trust
- Debt
- Singapore
- Yugoslavia
- Commission Agency
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Commercial Law
- Trusts
- Agency