KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd: Seizure and Sale of Club Membership
KLW Holdings Limited sued Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and Michael Chan for the return of a refundable commitment fee. After successfully obtaining summary judgment, KLW Holdings sought a writ of seizure and sale for Mr. Chan's membership at the Singapore Island Country Club (SICC). The court refused the application, holding that the club membership is not property of a sort which is exigible to a writ of seizure and sale.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for a writ of seizure and sale in respect of the Membership is refused.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court refuses writ of seizure for club membership, holding it's not tangible property subject to seizure and sale under court rules.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KLW Holdings Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application for writ of seizure and sale refused | Lost | |
| Straitsworld Advisory Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| Michael ET Chan | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Scott Tan | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Amy Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- KLW Holdings Limited sued Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and Michael Chan for the return of a refundable commitment fee of $7m.
- The Plaintiff successfully obtained summary judgment on 18 October 2016.
- The Defendants were ordered to pay the Plaintiff the sum of $7m plus interest and costs.
- The Plaintiff applied to examine Mr Chan to ascertain whether he had the means to satisfy the judgment debt.
- The Plaintiff discovered that Mr Chan was an “Ordinary Member (Transferable)” of the Singapore Island Country Club (“SICC”).
- The Plaintiff then requested that the Membership be seized and sold in satisfaction of the judgment debt.
5. Formal Citations
- KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and another, Suit No 1199 of 2015, [2017] SGHCR 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Term sheet signed | |
| Suit No 1199 of 2015 filed | |
| Summary judgment obtained by Plaintiff | |
| Defendants’ appeal dismissed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Judgment Debt
- Outcome: The court held that a writ of seizure and sale could not be issued in respect of the Membership.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 609
- [2003] 4 SLR(R) 780
8. Remedies Sought
- Writ of Seizure and Sale
9. Cause of Actions
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABD Pte Ltd v Comptroller of Income Tax | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a transferable club membership is a chose in action and therefore a form of movable property. |
| Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan and another appeal and another matter | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 785 | Singapore | Cited to show that club memberships have been recognised as being property that is capable of forming part of the pool of matrimonial assets. |
| Wallace Kevin James v Merill Lynch International Bank Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 61 | Singapore | Cited to show that club memberships have been recognised as being the subject matter of a worldwide Mareva injunction. |
| Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 802 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the relationship between a club and its members is governed by contract. |
| American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad and another and two other appeals | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR(R) 780 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the expression “writ of seizure and sale” in s 13 of the SCJA carries a wider meaning than the equivalent expression in the Rules. |
| HU v Comptroller of Income Tax | Income Tax Board of Review | Yes | [1999] SGITBR 1 | Singapore | Cited to define chose in action. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 533 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution. |
| Tan Holdings (in creditor’s voluntary liquidation) v Prosperity Steel (Asia) Co Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 80 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appointment of a receiver for a chose in action and that a receivership order has no proprietary effect. |
| Masri v Consolidated Contractors Int (UK) Ltd (No 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 1 QB 450 | England | Cited regarding the appointment of a receiver for a chose in action and that a receivership order has no proprietary effect. |
| Ooi Ching Ling Shirley v Just Gems Inc | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 738 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appointment of a receiver for a chose in action and that a receivership order has no proprietary effect. |
| One Investment and Consultancy Ltd and another v Cham Poh Meng (DBS Bank Ltd, garnishee) | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 923 | Singapore | Cited regarding the legislature being the appropriate body to undertake reform. |
| Scott v Scholey and another | Court of King's Bench | Yes | (1807) 8 East 476 | England | Cited for the principle that the writ of fieri facias could only be used to seize tangible goods and chattels. |
| Harrison v Paynter | Court of Exchequer | Yes | (1840) 151 ER 462 | England | Cited for the principle that mere debts or claims could not be seized under a writ of fieri facias because it did not fall within the scope of s 12 of the UK Judgments Act 1838. |
| Edwards and Co v Picard | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1909] 2 KB 903 | England | Cited for the principle that the UK CLPA 1854 did not cover other forms of intangible property such as a patentee’s right under a patent. |
| Alleyne v Darcy | Irish Court of Chancery | Yes | (1855) 5 l Ch R 56 | Ireland | Cited for the principle that the UK CLPA 1854 did not cover other forms of intangible property such as a beneficiary’s interest in an insurance policy. |
| KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 35 | Singapore | Reference to the appeal being dismissed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Writ of Seizure and Sale
- Club Membership
- Singapore Island Country Club
- Exigible Property
- Chose in Action
- Fieri Facias
15.2 Keywords
- writ of seizure and sale
- club membership
- enforcement
- judgment debt
- Singapore Island Country Club
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Writ of Seizure and Sale | 95 |
| Judgments and Orders | 90 |
| Enforcement of Order | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Property Law | 30 |
| Summary Judgement | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Execution Against Property