Singapore Air Charter v Peter Low & Choo LLC: Priority of Judgment Creditors in Property Sale
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd (SAC) against Peter Low & Choo LLC (PLC) and Malayan Banking Berhad, regarding the priority of claims over the surplus proceeds from the sale of a debtor's property. The High Court had previously ruled in favor of PLC. The Court of Appeal, with Judith Prakash JA delivering the judgment, dismissed the appeal, holding that PLC was entitled to the surplus proceeds because its Form 96 Order was the only valid writ registered against the property at the time of the sale.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding priority between judgment creditors, Singapore Air Charter and Peter Low & Choo LLC, over proceeds from debtor's property sale.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Salem bin Mohamed Ibrahim, Kulvinder Kaur, Ashley Yeo, Kenneth Goh |
| Peter Low & Choo LLC | Respondent | Limited Liability Partnership | Appeal Upheld | Won | Tang Hang Wu, Peter Cuthbert Low, Choo Zheng Xi, Low Ying Ning Elaine, Wong Thai Yong |
| Malayan Banking Berhad | Respondent | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Danial Patrick Higgins | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Salem bin Mohamed Ibrahim | Salem Ibrahim LLC |
| Kulvinder Kaur | Salem Ibrahim LLC |
| Ashley Yeo | Salem Ibrahim LLC |
| Kenneth Goh | Salem Ibrahim LLC |
| Tang Hang Wu | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Peter Cuthbert Low | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Low Ying Ning Elaine | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
| Wong Thai Yong | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
4. Facts
- Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd (SAC) obtained a judgment against Mr. Danial Patrick Higgins for US$340,500 on 26 September 2016.
- Peter Low & Choo LLC (PLC) obtained a judgment against Mr. Higgins for $394,254.13 in March 2018 for legal fees.
- Mr. Higgins co-owned an apartment unit in Pasir Ris which was mortgaged to Malayan Banking Berhad.
- Both SAC and PLC took steps to enforce their judgments against the property.
- SAC registered its Form 96 Order on 19 April 2017, which lapsed on 18 April 2018.
- PLC registered its Form 96 Order on 11 April 2018, which was valid until 10 April 2019.
- The bank effected a mortgagee sale of the property on 13 December 2018.
- At the time of the sale, only PLC's Form 96 Order was validly registered.
5. Formal Citations
- Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd v Peter Low & Choo LLC and another, Civil Appeal No 163 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 99
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judgment entered against the Debtor in favor of Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd for US$340,500 | |
| Judgment entered against the Debtor in favor of Peter Low & Choo LLC for $394,254.13 | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd applied for attachment of Debtor's interest in the Property | |
| High Court granted order to Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd for attachment of Debtor's interest in the Property | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd lodged Form 96 Order with the Registrar of Titles for registration | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd applied for the issue of a Form 83 Writ in respect of the Property | |
| Sheriff attended at the Property and affixed documents to it | |
| Bank indicated it would not consent to a sale by Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd granted First Extension Order extending validity of Form 96 Order until 28 March 2018 | |
| Registrar of Titles rejected Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd's application for registration of the First Extension Order | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd obtained Second Extension Order extending validity of Form 96 Order until 28 September 2018 | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd applied on 22 March 2018 to register its second extension of the Form 96 Order | |
| Peter Low & Choo LLC lodged its Form 96 Order for registration against the Property in the land-register | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd applied for an extension of the Form 83 Writ | |
| Peter Low & Choo LLC's Form 96 Order registration was effected | |
| Peter Low & Choo LLC obtained a Form 83 Writ in respect of the Property | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd granted WSS Extension Order extending the Form 83 Writ for a further twelve months from 18 April 2018 to 17 April 2019 | |
| Registrar of Titles rejected Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd's application to register the Second Extension Order | |
| Registrar of Titles rejected Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd's application to register the WSS Extension Order | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd applied again for the registration of the WSS Extension Order | |
| Option to purchase issued for the Property | |
| Mortgagee sale effected | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd's application for the registration of the WSS Extension Order was registered | |
| Peter Low & Choo LLC took out an originating summons in the High Court | |
| Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd was granted leave to appeal | |
| Associate Professor Alvin See Wei Liang appointed as amicus curiae | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Priority of Judgment Creditors
- Outcome: The court held that priority between judgment creditors is determined by the order of registration of their Form 96 Orders, and that a Form 96 Order must be valid at the time of the mortgagee sale to claim entitlement to the residue of the sale proceeds.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1987] SGHC 65
- [2006] 3 SLR(R) 322
- [2018] 4 SLR 1003
- [2019] SGHC 89
- [2020] 3 SLR 1074
- Interpretation of Land Titles Act
- Outcome: The court clarified the interpretation of ss 132 and 134 of the Land Titles Act, specifically regarding the registration and lapsing of writs of execution.
- Category: Substantive
- Validity and Extension of Form 96 Order
- Outcome: The court determined that the Form 96 Order is the 'writ of execution' that needs to be registered under s 132(1) of the LTA and that its registration lapses one year from the date of registration.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Entitlement to Surplus Proceeds
- Payment of Surplus Proceeds
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Judgment Debt
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Civil Litigation
- Debt Recovery
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suttons International Ltd v The Management Corporation - Strata Title No. 992 | High Court | Yes | [1987] SGHC 65 | Singapore | Cited to support the interpretation of 'order of court' in s 132(1) of the Land Titles Act as not limited to execution proceedings. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Chia Kin Tuck | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 322 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a writ of seizure and sale does not create a security interest and to identify the judgment creditor as a person entitled to the mortgaged property. |
| Peter Low LLC v Higgins, Danial Patrick | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1003 | Singapore | Cited regarding the possibility of a sale without the mortgagee's consent, but the court notes that the comments were obiter dicta. |
| Peter Low & Choo LLC v Singapore Air Charter Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 89 | Singapore | The High Court decision under appeal, which ruled that PLC was entitled to the surplus proceeds in priority over SAC. |
| BYX v BYY | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 1074 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the High Court's power to order a sale of immovable property without the mortgagee bank's consent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 46 r 6 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 46 r 6(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 46 r 6(4) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 47 r 4 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 47 r 4(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 47 r 4(1)(a) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 47 r 4(1)(e) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 47 r 4(1)(f) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 131 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 132 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 133 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 134 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 135 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 37 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 48 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 74 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 137 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Writ of Execution
- Form 96 Order
- Form 83 Writ
- Land Titles Act
- Priority of Creditors
- Mortgagee Sale
- Surplus Proceeds
- Registration of Writ
- Lapsing of Writ
- Sheriff's Sale
15.2 Keywords
- judgment creditor
- writ of execution
- Form 96
- Form 83
- Land Titles Act
- mortgagee sale
- priority
- registration
- lapsing
- Sheriff
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Land Law
- Enforcement of Judgments
- Priority of Claims
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation
- Land Law
- Property Law
- Debt Recovery
- Enforcement of Judgments