Peter Low & Choo LLC v Singapore Air Charter: Priority of Writs of Seizure and Sale under Land Titles Act

In Peter Low & Choo LLC v Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd and Malayan Banking Berhad, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Peter Low & Choo LLC to determine the priority of competing claims to surplus proceeds from the sale of a property owned by Danial Patrick Higgins. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, ruled on April 2, 2019, that Peter Low & Choo LLC was entitled to Danial Patrick Higgins' interest in the surplus proceeds in priority over Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd, based on the registration dates of their respective writs of seizure and sale under the Land Titles Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the applicant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Law firm Peter Low & Choo LLC sought priority over Singapore Air Charter for surplus proceeds from a property sale. The court ruled in favor of Peter Low & Choo LLC.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Peter Low & Choo LLCApplicantLaw FirmJudgment for ApplicantWonChoo Zheng Xi, Elaine Low Ying Ning, Wong Thai Yong
Singapore Air Charter Pte LtdRespondentCorporationClaim DismissedLostSalem Bin Mohamed Ibrahim, Kulvinder Kaur
Malayan Banking BerhadRespondentCorporationNeutralNeutralNg Yeow Khoon, Claudia Marianne Frankie Khoo

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Choo Zheng XiPeter Low & Choo LLC
Elaine Low Ying NingPeter Low & Choo LLC
Wong Thai YongPeter Low & Choo LLC
Salem Bin Mohamed IbrahimSalem Ibrahim LLC
Kulvinder KaurSalem Ibrahim LLC
Ng Yeow KhoonShook Lin & Bok LLP
Claudia Marianne Frankie KhooShook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

  1. The applicant is a judgment creditor of Danial Patrick Higgins (DP) for $420,072.37.
  2. The first respondent is a judgment creditor of DP for $533,540.90.
  3. The second respondent sold a property mortgaged to it by DP and held surplus proceeds of $745,471.64.
  4. Both the applicant and the first respondent have competing claims to the surplus proceeds under their respective writs of seizure and sale.
  5. The first respondent registered its A&E Order on 19 April 2017 and its WSS 21/2017 on the same date.
  6. The applicant registered its A&E Order and was issued WSS 18/2018 on 11 April 2018.
  7. The property was sold on 13 December 2018.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Peter Low & Choo LLC v Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd and another, HC/Originating Summons No 113 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 89

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Judgment in favour of the first respondent against DP for $533,540.90.
First respondent registered its order of court for attachment and execution of the Property.
First respondent's Writ of Seizure and Sale 21/2017 was filed.
Judgment in favour of the applicant against DP for $420,072.37.
First respondent obtained an order of court to extend WSS 21 for a further 12 months.
Registrar rejected the first respondent's application to register the Extension Order.
Applicant registered its A&E Order and was issued WSS 18/2018.
Applicant attempted to register WSS 18, but the Registrar rejected this application.
First respondent applied for a second time to register the Extension Order.
Registrar rejected the registration of the Extension Order.
First respondent applied for a third time to register the Extension Order.
The Property was sold.
First respondent's Extension Order was registered.
Registrar cancelled WSS 21.
Sheriff informed the applicant that the Surplus Proceeds will only be paid out pursuant to an order of court.
Applicant applied under this Originating Summons for a declaration that it is entitled to DP’s interest in the Surplus Proceeds in priority over the first respondent.
Arguments heard.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Priority of Writs of Seizure and Sale
    • Outcome: The court held that the applicant's writ of seizure and sale had priority over the first respondent's writ because the first respondent's writ had lapsed at the time the property was sold.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lapsing of writs
      • Registration of extension order

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of priority over surplus proceeds

9. Cause of Actions

  • Enforcement of Judgment Debt

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Peter Low LLC v Higgins, Danial PatrickHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 59SingaporeCited to support the distinction between an A&E Order and a WSS.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Chia Kin TuckHigh CourtYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 322SingaporeCited to support the point that registration is an essential prerequisite to bind or affect the Property.
Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai YeeHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 295SingaporeCited to support the point that an A&E Order is the same document as the writ of seizure and sale referred to in s 105(2)(c) of the Bankruptcy Act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed) O. 47, r. 4

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 37Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 48Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 132Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 134Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 136Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Writ of Seizure and Sale
  • Attachment and Execution Order
  • Surplus Proceeds
  • Land Titles Act
  • Registration
  • Priority

15.2 Keywords

  • writ of seizure and sale
  • land titles act
  • priority
  • registration
  • surplus proceeds

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Land Law
  • Real Estate
  • Debt Recovery

17. Areas of Law

  • Land Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Land Titles Act