Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (Malaysia) v Ling Lee Soon: Bankruptcy & Jurisdiction Dispute

In Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (Malaysia) v Ling Lee Soon, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal by Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (Malaysia) (“LTAT”) against the decision of an Assistant Registrar to dismiss LTAT's application for a bankruptcy order against Ling Lee Soon. LTAT, a Malaysian entity, sought the order based on a registered Malaysian judgment. Ling contested the proceedings, arguing that the requirements of the Bankruptcy Act were not met, and that a bankruptcy order would be subject to annulment. The High Court allowed the appeal on 5 October 2016, setting aside the AR's decision, making a bankruptcy order against Ling, and appointing the Official Assignee as trustee of Ling’s estate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Bankruptcy

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case where LTAT sought bankruptcy order against Ling. The court addressed residency, jurisdiction, and potential annulment issues.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (Malaysia)Plaintiff, AppellantStatutory BoardAppeal AllowedWon
Ling Lee SoonDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ker YanguangMorgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Adrian TanMorgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Hari VelluriMorgan Lewis Stamford LLC
Roy LimRobert Wang & Woo LLP
Alison LeeRobert Wang & Woo LLP

4. Facts

  1. LTAT obtained a judgment against Ling on 18 August 2014 in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  2. LTAT commenced bankruptcy proceedings in Singapore against Ling on 27 November 2015.
  3. Ling was adjudged a bankrupt in Malaysia on 18 December 2015.
  4. Ling's wife is a Singapore citizen and a joint owner of an apartment at Grange Road Residence.
  5. Ling possesses a long-term visit pass issued by the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority of Singapore.
  6. Ling stated in a letter to the Malaysian Department of Insolvency that he receives Chinese acupuncture treatment in Singapore at least four times a week.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (Malaysia) v Ling Lee Soon, Bankruptcy No 2376 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 254

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Malayan High Court ordered Ling to pay LTAT RM 55,000,000 plus interest and costs.
LTAT commenced Originating Summons No 358 of 2015 in the Singapore High Court to register the Malaysian Judgment.
Singapore High Court ordered the Malaysian Judgment to be registered as a judgment of the Singapore High Court.
Assistant Registrar granted an order allowing LTAT to serve the Singapore Judgment on Ling by posting the documents on the front door/gate of an apartment.
Haron bin Salim served the OS 358 Documents on Ling by posting them on the front door/gate of #03-03.
Robert Wang & Woo LLP wrote to MLS about some negotiations for a settlement.
MLS replied to say that there was no negotiation and to ask whether RWW had instructions to accept service of a statutory demand on behalf of Ling by 13 August 2015.
MLS issued a statutory demand against Ling for the sum of RM 57,802,084.79.
Haron effected substituted service of the statutory demand by posting a copy of the statutory demand on the front door of #03-03.
RWW confirmed that they had instructions to accept service of the statutory demand on behalf of Ling.
MLS informed RWW that the statutory demand had been served on Ling on 17 August 2015.
RWW wrote to MLS stating that Ling was “unable to satisfy the judgment sum in OS 358…”.
LTAT commenced bankruptcy proceedings in Singapore against Ling.
Personal service of B 2376 on Ling was attempted on three separate occasions between 1 to 3 December 2015.
Al-ameen wrote to Datuk Zakaria to request LTAT to withdraw bankruptcy proceedings against Ling.
Ling was adjudged a bankrupt in Malaysia.
LTAT filed a substituted service application for an order to serve the court papers of B 2376 by posting the documents on the front door/gate of #03-03.
An AR granted the substituted service order.
Haron served the B 2376 court papers on Ling by posting them on the front door/gate of #03-03.
A formal Notice of Appointment of Solicitors for Ling was filed.
B 2376 was adjourned.
AR dismissed LTAT’s application for a bankruptcy order.
LTAT filed a notice of appeal to a judge in the Singapore High Court.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the AR, making a bankruptcy order against Ling.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court found that Ling had a place of residence and was ordinarily resident in Singapore within the relevant period, thus establishing jurisdiction.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ordinary Residence
      • Place of Residence
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 2 SLR 360
  2. Annulment of Bankruptcy Order
    • Outcome: The court held that while factors for annulment could be considered when deciding whether to make a bankruptcy order, the Singapore court was not obliged to dismiss the application simply because of a prior bankruptcy order in Malaysia.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] SGHCR 6
  3. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court rejected the argument that the proceedings served no purpose and constituted an abuse of power, finding that the purpose of the bankruptcy application was to investigate the existence of assets in Singapore.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Bankruptcy Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Bankruptcy

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tjong Very Sumito v Chan Sing EnHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 360SingaporeCited for the proposition that the state of mind of the “propositus” is paramount in determining ordinary residence.
Regina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Nilish ShahUnknownYes[1983] 2 AC 309EnglandCited for the principle that a stay need not be indefinite to establish a settled purpose for ordinary residence.
Tang Yong Kiat Rickie v Sinesinga Sdn Bhd and othersAssistant RegistrarYes[2014] SGHCR 6SingaporeCited to submit that in addition to the requirements stated in ss 123(1)(c) or (d), the court must also be satisfied that the bankruptcy order ought to be annulled when all relevant circumstances are considered.
Amos William Dawe v Development & Commercial Bank (Ltd) BhdFederal CourtYes[1981] 1 MLJ 230MalaysiaReferred to by LTAT to preclude a Malaysian creditor from seeking to enforce his judgment against the bankrupt’s assets in Singapore and gain an unfair advantage against other creditors in Malaysia.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bankruptcy Order
  • Statutory Demand
  • Ordinary Residence
  • Place of Residence
  • Substituted Service
  • Long-Term Visit Pass
  • Annulment
  • Official Assignee

15.2 Keywords

  • bankruptcy
  • jurisdiction
  • singapore
  • malaysia
  • insolvency
  • residence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bankruptcy95
Insolvency Law90
Recognition of Foreign Judgments70
Asset Recovery30
Administrative Law5

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Jurisdiction
  • Insolvency