Telecom Credit Inc v. Star Commerce Pte Ltd: Garnishee Orders & Standard of Proof
Telecom Credit Inc, the Judgment Creditor, sought to make absolute a provisional garnishee order against Midas United Group Pte Ltd, the garnishee, after obtaining a default judgment against Star Commerce Pte Ltd, the Judgment Debtor, in the High Court of Singapore. Midas challenged the application, arguing that the debt sought to be garnished was not due or accruing due to the Judgment Debtor. The court clarified the burden of proof in garnishee show cause proceedings and ordered a trial to determine Midas's liability.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Trial ordered to determine the garnishee's liability to pay the monies to the judgment debtor.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Garnishee proceedings where Telecom Credit Inc sought to garnish funds from Star Commerce Pte Ltd. The court clarified the burden of proof in garnishee show cause proceedings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Telecom Credit Inc | Plaintiff | Corporation | Trial Ordered | Neutral | |
| Midas United Group Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Trial Ordered | Neutral | |
| Star Commerce Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Default Judgment | Lost | |
| IFKAP Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Position Reserved | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Bryan Fang | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Telecom Credit Inc obtained a default judgment against Star Commerce Pte Ltd.
- Telecom Credit Inc applied for and obtained two ex parte provisional garnishee orders against IFKAP Pte Ltd and Midas United Group Pte Ltd.
- Midas challenged the application to make the provisional garnishee order absolute, arguing that the debt was not due or accruing due to the Judgment Debtor.
- The Judgment Creditor relied on documents executed by IAP to establish that Midas is liable to pay the Judgment Debtor the Monies.
- Midas argued that IAP did not have carte blanche to deal with the monies held on Midas’ behalf.
- A director of Midas, Hyun Seung Moon, stated that IAP did not have the authority of Midas to enter into the IAP Confirmation Documents.
- Midas claimed that the monies have been legitimately withheld as security under its contracts with the Judgment Debtor.
5. Formal Citations
- Telecom Credit Inc v Star Commerce Pte Ltd, Suit No 389 of 2016, [2017] SGHCR 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Proceedings commenced in Singapore | |
| Ex parte injunction obtained | |
| Default judgment granted | |
| Confirmation Memorandum and Statement of Agreement both dated | |
| SUM 5728 and SUM 5729 filed | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| February Meeting | |
| Hashimoto's first apology letter | |
| May Meeting | |
| Hashimoto's second apology letter |
7. Legal Issues
- Burden of Proof in Garnishee Show Cause Proceedings
- Outcome: The court clarified that the legal burden remains on the judgment creditor to prove the existence of the debt, but the provisional garnishee order transfers the initiative to the garnishee to dispute liability.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 177
- [2015] 4 SLR 529
- [2016] 5 SLR 372
- Liability to Pay Debt
- Outcome: The court ordered a trial to determine whether Midas was liable to pay the debt to the Judgment Debtor.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Garnishee Order
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Credit Card Processing
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 principles regarding the determination of liability in garnishee proceedings. |
| Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) and others | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 529 | Singapore | Cited for principles regarding the burden of proof in garnishee proceedings. |
| The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) v Westacre Investments Inc and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for principles regarding the burden of proof in garnishee proceedings. |
| Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1342 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing summary judgment applications. |
| M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko | N/A | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 325 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing summary judgment applications. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited regarding the determination of factual disputes on affidavit evidence. |
| The “Chem Orchid” and other appeals and another matter | N/A | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 50 | Singapore | Cited regarding the determination of factual disputes on affidavit evidence. |
| BHP Billiton Marketing AG v TMT Asia Limited and others | English High Court | Yes | [2013] EWHC 4610 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited regarding the standard of proof at the garnishee show cause stage. |
| Lim Boon Kwee (trading as B K Lim & Co) v Impexital SRL (Sembawang Multiplex Joint Venture, garnishee) | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 757 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a debt due and accruing due. |
| Vintage Bullion DMCC (in its own capacity and as representative of the customers of MF Global Singapore Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)) v Chay Fook Yuen (in his capacity as joint and several liquidator of MF Global Singapore Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)) and others and other appeals | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 49 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a debt due and accruing due. |
| Leads Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Chin Choon Co (Pte) Ltd (personal representatives of the estate of Choo Kok Hoe, deceased, garnishee) | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 53 | Singapore | Cited regarding the evidence required to assert a right of set-off. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 49 r 5 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Garnishee Order
- Judgment Creditor
- Judgment Debtor
- Provisional Garnishee Order
- Show Cause Hearing
- Debt Due
- Debt Accruing Due
- Prima Facie Case
- Arguable Defence
15.2 Keywords
- garnishee
- judgment
- debt
- procedure
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Garnishee Proceedings | 90 |
| Judgments and Orders | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Costs | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Garnishee Proceedings
- Judgments and Orders