Peter Low LLC v Higgins: Writ of Seizure and Sale Against Joint Tenant's Property
In Peter Low LLC v Higgins, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of whether a judgment for the payment of money can be enforced by way of a writ of seizure and sale (WSS) against the judgment debtor’s interest in immovable property held under a joint tenancy. The court allowed the appeal, holding that a joint tenant’s interest in immovable property is exigible to a WSS under the statutory framework applicable in Singapore. The Plaintiff, Peter Low LLC, was seeking to enforce a judgment debt against the Defendant, Higgins, Danial Patrick.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court allows a writ of seizure and sale against a joint tenant's property interest, aligning with Commonwealth jurisdictions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peter Low LLC | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Higgins, Danial Patrick | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Pang Khang Chau | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tang Hang Wu | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Mannar Rajkumar | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
4. Facts
- Peter Low LLC represented Higgins in two High Court suits.
- Judgment was rendered against Higgins in those suits on 26 September 2016.
- Peter Low LLC commenced proceedings against Higgins for unpaid legal fees.
- Peter Low LLC obtained judgment in default of appearance against Higgins for $394,254.14 plus interest and costs.
- Higgins and his wife held a residential unit in Singapore as joint tenants.
- The property was subject to a charge by the Central Provident Fund Board and a mortgage by Malayan Banking Bhd.
- Peter Low LLC applied for an order attaching Higgins’ interest in the property to satisfy the judgment sum.
5. Formal Citations
- Peter Low LLC v Higgins, Danial Patrick, Suit No 194 of 2017(Registrar’s Appeal No 327 of 2017), [2018] SGHC 59
- Peter Low LLC v Higgins, Danial Patrick, , [2017] SGHCR 18
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| High Court suit HC/S 244 of 2013 filed | |
| High Court suit HC/S 733 of 2014 filed | |
| Judgment rendered in Suits 244 and 733 | |
| Peter Low LLC ceased acting as Higgins' solicitors | |
| Peter Low LLC commenced proceedings against Higgins for unpaid legal fees | |
| Order attaching Higgins’ interest in the Property registered with the Registry of Titles | |
| Suit 733 Plaintiff filed a WSS in respect of the Defendant’s interest in the Property | |
| Sheriff served the WSS at the Property | |
| Higgins and his wife claimed they were residing in Ireland | |
| Peter Low LLC obtained judgment in default of appearance against Higgins | |
| Peter Low LLC applied for an order attaching Higgins’ interest in the Property | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Application dismissed by the AR | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of Judgments Against Jointly Owned Property
- Outcome: The court held that a writ of seizure and sale may be issued against the interest of a joint tenant in land, and that the joint tenancy is severed when the writ is registered.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Exigibility of joint tenant's interest to writ of seizure and sale
- Severance of joint tenancy upon registration of writ of seizure and sale
- Sheriff's power to sell entire property vs. debtor's interest only
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 1008
- [2017] SGHC 136
- [2015] 5 SLR 295
8. Remedies Sought
- Writ of Seizure and Sale
- Attachment of Property
9. Cause of Actions
- Debt Recovery
- Unpaid Legal Fees
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Debt Recovery
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Legal Services
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 | The AR considered himself bound by this case to hold that a joint tenant’s interest in immovable property is not exigible to a writ of seizure and sale. |
| Chan Lung Kien v Chan Shwe Ching | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 136 | Singapore | The AR considered himself bound by this case to hold that a joint tenant’s interest in immovable property is not exigible to a writ of seizure and sale. |
| Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai Yee | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 295 | Singapore | Took a contrary position to Malayan Banking Bhd v Focal Finance Ltd and Chan Lung Kien v Chan Shwe Ching, but the AR reasoned that it ceased to have precedential force once the ex parte order granted in Chan Shwe Ching was set aside inter partes in Chan Lung Kien. |
| Higgins, Danial Patrick v Mulacek, Philippe Emanuel and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 848 | Singapore | Judgment in the Suits was rendered on 26 September 2016 and reported as Higgins, Danial Patrick v Mulacek, Philippe Emanuel and others and another suit [2016] 5 SLR 848 (“the Suit 733 Judgment”). |
| Lord Abergavenny’s case | Court of Common Pleas | Yes | (1607) 6 Co Rep 78b; 77 ER 373 | England | Case concerned the execution of a writ of elegit on the interest of a joint tenant in land. The court held that the judgment creditor would be entitled to proceed with execution by writ of elegit against the land as though the judgment debtor had remained a joint tenant of the land. |
| Wright v Gibbons | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1949] 78 CLR 313 | Australia | The introduction of the Torrens system of land registration “does not alter the law with respect to joint tenancy. It leaves the incidents of joint tenancy standing as they are determined by the common law and any other relevant statute.” |
| Guthrie v ANZ Banking Group Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | (1991) 23 NSWLR 672 | Australia | Followed Lord Abergavenny’s case. The legal proposition for which it is authority is that where judgment is given against one of two joint tenants and afterwards that one releases to the other before execution such release shall not bar the creditor’s execution, whereas if the releasing joint tenant had died before execution the survivor holds the land discharged of any execution. |
| Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Le | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2007) 240 ALR 204 | Australia | Positively cited the authority of P J Butt, Land Law for the proposition that:… for the purposes of severance, “a joint tenant is regarded as having a potential share in the land commensurate with that of the other joint tenants”. Alienation of a joint tenant’s interest in land is one method of severance. |
| Boyd v Thorn | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] NSWCA 210 | Australia | Considered the effect of an execution of judgment on jointly owned property and held that the company also has ordinary rights of execution, based on its existing judgment debt, against the employee’s assets. |
| Yu Pei-Tseng v Mong Wing Ho Alexander | Hong Kong District Court Law Reports | Yes | [1978] HKDCLR 15 | Hong Kong | The court held that “a joint owner’s interest in Hong Kong is an interest in land and may be effectively charged in execution under our O.50 r.1 unless it is expressly made subject to a trust for sale” |
| Ho Wai Kwan v Chan Hon Kuen | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2015] 1 HKLRD 901 | Hong Kong | The judgment creditor’s ability to execute its judgment against land held in joint tenancy was not disputed in these cases |
| Primecredit Ltd v Yueng Chun Pang Barry | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2017] 4 HKLRD 327 | Hong Kong | The judgment creditor’s ability to execute its judgment against land held in joint tenancy was not disputed in these cases |
| Power v Grace | Court of Appeal of Ontario | Yes | [1932] 2 DLR 793 | Canada | The Court of Appeal of Ontario held that it has been undoubted law for centuries that where a writ under which an interest in land may be taken by the sheriff has been placed in his hands against a joint-tenant, and the joint-tenant dies before execution, the other joint-tenant surviving holds it discharged of the execution. |
| Maroukis v Maroukis | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1984] 2 SCR 137 | Canada | The Supreme Court of Canada held that there could be no doubt about the exigibility of a joint tenant’s interest in land to execution. |
| Re Tully and Tully and Klotz | Ontario High Court | Yes | [1953] OWN 661 | Canada | The report of the court’s decision consisted of a single sentence: Barlow J. delivered judgment, without written reasons, holding that the requisition had been satisfactorily answered. |
| Containercare (Ireland) Limited v Geoffrey Wycherley and another | Supreme Court | Yes | [1982] IR 143 | Ireland | Dealt with the question of when severance had occurred in situations where execution had already been levied against the interest of a joint tenant in land |
| Judge Alan Mahon and others v Noel Lawlor and another | Supreme Court | Yes | [2011] IR 311 | Ireland | Dealt with the question of when severance had occurred in situations where execution had already been levied against the interest of a joint tenant in land; the latter case also cited with approval Lord Abergavenny’s Case |
| Gateshead Investments Ltd and another v Christopher Michael Harvey as executor of the estate of Michael George Harvey (deceased) | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] NZCA 361 | New Zealand | The issue was whether an incomplete transfer of a property by one joint tenant to the other joint tenant amounted to severance such that judgment creditors with a charging order over the interest of one joint tenant were entitled only to half and not the whole of the estate upon the death of the other joint tenant |
| James F Walker v Susan Lundborg | Privy Council | Yes | [2008] UKPC 17 | Bahamas | The court observed that the making of a charging order against the interest in land of one joint tenant pursuant to a judgment obtained against him amounted to a severance of the joint tenancy |
| Royal Bank of Canada v Jordan; Barclays Bank plc and another v Jordan | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1994) 48 WIR 61 | Barbados | The court held that Lord Abergavenny’s case formed part of the received laws of Barbados and further cited Lord Abergavenny’s case as well as various Canadian authorities in deciding whether a joint tenancy was severed by mere registration of a judgment against a joint tenant under the Registration of Judgments Act without issuance of writ of execution |
| First Global Bank Limited v Rohan Rose | Jamaica Commercial Court | Yes | [2016] JMCC COMM 19 | Jamaica | The main issue in this case was whether a joint tenant’s interest in land was exigible to execution by a judgment creditor; the court held that it was, citing, inter alia, Comyns’ Digest and Wright v Gibbons |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Chia Kin Tuck | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 322 | Singapore | The common law position in relation to the interest(s) of a judgment creditor is not altered by the LTA and further that the registration of a WSS does not create a proprietary interest in the subject property. |
| The Registrar General of New South Wales v Wood | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1926] 39 CLR 46 | Australia | The essential feature of the joint tenancy which renders a joint tenant’s interest exigible to execution is its severability, related to which is the ability of one joint tenant to alienate his share without the agreement of the other joint tenant. |
| Felicity Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2015] HCA 2 | Australia | There are “two not altogether compatible aspects of joint tenancy”. Consequently, the court is not compelled to focus only on one aspect (that a joint tenant holds the whole with the other joint tenant but holds nothing by himself) to the exclusion of the other equally valid aspect (that a joint tenant has a real ownership interest which is capable of immediate alienation without the consent of the other joint tenants). |
| Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 364 | Singapore | Joint tenancy is that form of co-ownership where each of the co-owners is entitled to the whole of the interest which is the subject of co-ownership. In a joint-tenancy, each joint tenant holds the whole jointly and nothing severally… Joint tenants have rights inter se, but against the world they are seen as one single owner. |
| One Investment and Consultancy Ltd and another v Cham Poh Meng (DBS Bank Ltd, garnishee) | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 923 | Singapore | One Investment held that garnishee proceedings could not be brought against a bank account held in joint names. |
| Frieze v Unger | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1960] VR 230 | Australia | But a demise for a term of years by one of two joint tenants in fee does not, according to the preferable view, work a severance of the whole fee; at most it effects a “severance for the time”, or “suspends” the joint tenancy pro tem. |
| Midland Bank Ltd v Pike | Chancery Division | Yes | [1988] 2 All ER 434 | England | Walker v Lundborg cited Pike as an authority for this proposition. |
| Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 445 | Singapore | Horizontal stare decisis does not prevail in Singapore and that, consequently, I am not bound by Malayan Banking. |
| American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmand and another and two other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR(R) 780 | Singapore | Because the ROC provides for different modes of execution, there is no requirement to interpret any particular provision on execution in the ROC as coinciding in scope with the full ambit of s 13 of the SCJA. |
| KLW Holdings Ltd v Straitsworld Advisory Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHCR 11 | Singapore | Because the ROC provides for different modes of execution, there is no requirement to interpret any particular provision on execution in the ROC as coinciding in scope with the full ambit of s 13 of the SCJA. |
| Sivakolunthu Kumarasamy v Shanmugam Nagaiah and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 702 | Singapore | Recognised that the severance of a joint tenancy could be effected by an order of court, that decision had no application to a WSS because, unlike an order for the sale of property under the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed), a WSS is not an order that must necessarily result in a sale – a WSS could lapse or be withdrawn without the property being sold |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (O 47 rr 4 and 5) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Writ of Seizure and Sale
- Joint Tenancy
- Execution of Judgment
- Immovable Property
- Severance
- Temporary Severance
- Interest in Land
- Judgment Debtor
- Judgment Creditor
- Aliquot Share
15.2 Keywords
- writ of seizure and sale
- joint tenancy
- execution
- property
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Writ of Seizure and Sale | 95 |
| Judgments and Orders | 90 |
| Enforcement of Order | 90 |
| Joint Tenancy | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Property Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Property Law
- Execution of Judgments