Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai Yee: Enforceability of Writ of Seizure and Sale on Jointly Owned Property
In Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai Yee, the Singapore High Court addressed the enforceability of a writ of seizure and sale (WSS) on a property held in joint tenancy. The plaintiff, Chan Shwe Ching, sought to attach and execute the defendant's, Leong Lai Yee's, interest in the property to satisfy a judgment debt of approximately $1.47 million. The court allowed the application, holding that a joint tenant's interest can be subject to a WSS, even without prior severance of the joint tenancy. The court awarded costs of $5,000 to the plaintiff.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed for the defendant's interest in the property to be attached and taken in execution to satisfy the judgment debt.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court allowed the plaintiff's application for a writ of seizure and sale against the defendant's interest in a jointly owned property. The court held that a joint tenant's interest can be subject to a writ.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Shwe Ching | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | Chia Soo Michael, Hany Soh Hui Bin |
| Leong Lai Yee | Defendant | Individual | Application Granted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Edmund Leow | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chia Soo Michael | Chia-Thomas Law Chambers LLC |
| Hany Soh Hui Bin | Chia-Thomas Law Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant for payment of approximately $1.43m.
- The defendant was reported missing and owed about $60m to investors.
- The plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the defendant for approximately $1.43m.
- The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff costs fixed at $22,000 with disbursements.
- The plaintiff applied to appoint a receiver over the property, but it did not assist as there was no rent to receive.
- The property is held by the defendant and her husband as joint tenants.
- The total sum due to the plaintiff under the Judgment Debt of about $1.47m remains unpaid.
5. Formal Citations
- Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai Yee, HC/Suit No 342 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 210
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant for payment of approximately $1.43m. | |
| Defendant was reported missing. | |
| Plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the defendant for approximately $1.43m. | |
| Court granted application for the appointment of a receiver. | |
| Court allowed the application for the defendant’s interest in the property to be attached. | |
| Reasons for allowing the application given by the court. |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Writ of Seizure and Sale on Jointly Owned Property
- Outcome: The court held that a writ of seizure and sale can be issued against a joint tenant’s interest in land.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 1008
- Severance of Joint Tenancy
- Outcome: The court stated that the relevant question is not whether severance of the joint tenancy has occurred or will immediately occur, but whether severance can occur in the future.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Attachment of property
- Writ of Seizure and Sale
9. Cause of Actions
- Debt
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Debt Recovery
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malayan Banking Bhd v Focal Finance Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 1008 | Singapore | Distinguished; the court held that the Malayan Banking case should not be followed as it produced an inequitable result in this case. |
| Wright v Gibbons | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1949) 78 CLR 313 | Australia | Cited to support the argument that a joint tenant has an identifiable interest in land capable of being determined for alienation purposes. |
| Neo Hui Ling v Ang Ah Sew | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 328 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court determines what a joint tenant should be entitled to out of the sale proceeds of a property. |
| Gurnam Kaur d/o Sardara Singh v Harbhajan Singh s/o Jagraj Singh (alias Harbhajan Singh s/o Jogaraj Singh) | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 420 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court determines what a joint tenant should be entitled to out of the sale proceeds of a property. |
| Lim Geok Swan v Lim Shook Luan | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 18 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court declares each joint tenant’s beneficial interest in the property to apportion the sale proceeds. |
| The Registrar-General of New South Wales v Wood | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1926) 39 CLR 46 | Australia | Cited to show that courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions assume that a WSS can be carried out on a joint tenant’s interest in land. |
| Mitrovic v Koren | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1971] VR 479 | Australia | Cited to show that courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions assume that a WSS can be carried out on a joint tenant’s interest in land. |
| Re Young | Unknown | Yes | [1968] 70 DLR (2d) 594 | Canada | Cited to show that Canadian courts have no difficulty accepting that the interest can be subject to a writ in the first place. |
| Power v Grace | Unknown | Yes | [1932] 2 DLR 793 | Canada | Cited to show that Canadian courts have no difficulty accepting that the interest can be subject to a writ in the first place. |
| Toronto-Dominion Bank v Phillips | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | (2014) ONCA 613 | Canada | Cited to show that Canadian courts have long stated that the mere registration of a writ of fieri facias does not sever a joint tenancy. |
| Maroukis v Maroukis | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1984] 2 SCR 137 | Canada | Cited to show that the Supreme Court of Canada has expressly recognised that the interest of a joint tenant is “exigible” and hence can be subject to a charging order. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 30 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 51 |
| Rules of Court O 47 r 4 |
| Rules of Court O 47 r 4(1)(a) |
| Rules of Court O 47 r 4(1)(e)(i) |
| Rules of Court O 47 r 5(g) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) s 105(1) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act s 105(2)(c) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 18(2) | Singapore |
| Execution Act (RSO 1990, Chapter E.24) s 9 | Canada |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Writ of Seizure and Sale
- Joint Tenancy
- Judgment Debt
- Severance
- Execution
- Order of Court
- Receiver
15.2 Keywords
- writ of seizure and sale
- joint tenancy
- property
- execution
- judgment debt
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Property Law
- Enforcement of Judgments
- Joint Tenancy
- Writs of Execution
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property Law
- Execution Against Property
- Joint Tenancy