Koh Kim Teck v. Shook Lin & Bok LLP: Bankruptcy - Setting Aside Statutory Demand

In Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLP, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Koh Kim Teck against the dismissal of his application to set aside a statutory demand issued by Shook Lin & Bok LLP. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory demand was validly served and that Koh Kim Teck had no substantial grounds to dispute the debt or assert a valid cross demand. The court ordered Koh Kim Teck to pay costs to Shook Lin & Bok LLP.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Bankruptcy

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed an appeal to set aside a statutory demand in a bankruptcy case, finding valid service and no substantial grounds to dispute the debt.

1.7 Decision Date

28 April 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Koh Kim Teck	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Ashok Kumar Rai of Cairnhill Law LLC Derek Kang Yu Hsien of Cairnhill Law LLC
Shook Lin & Bok LLP	Defendant, Respondent	Limited Liability Partnership	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Leong Woon Ho of Shook Lin & Bok LLP Goh Keng Huang of Shook Lin & Bok LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
S Mohan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ashok Kumar Rai	Cairnhill Law LLC
Derek Kang Yu Hsien	Cairnhill Law LLC
Leong Woon Ho	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Goh Keng Huang	Shook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiff is a former client of the defendant, a law firm.
The defendant acted for the plaintiff in two consolidated suits from May 2013 to January 2018.
Two of the defendant’s invoices issued to the plaintiff remained outstanding.
The defendant issued a statutory demand to the plaintiff for the outstanding invoices.
The plaintiff applied to set aside the statutory demand.
The defendant attempted personal service on the plaintiff at his last known address.
The defendant placed an advertisement in the Straits Times with a notice of the statutory demand.

5. Formal Citations

Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Originating Summons (Bankruptcy) 129 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 86

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-05-01	Defendant acted for the plaintiff in two consolidated suits.
2017-10-26	Invoice No. 150722 dated issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.
2018-01-22	Plaintiff discharged the defendant and appointed Optimus Chambers LLC.
2018-03-01	Communications between the defendant, the plaintiff and Optimus Chambers began.
2018-03-13	Invoice No. 152152 dated issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.
2018-11-01	Communications between the defendant, the plaintiff and Optimus Chambers ended.
2018-11-29	Statutory demand issued by the defendant against the plaintiff.
2019-01-15	Originating Summons 67 of 2019 filed by the plaintiff.
2019-03-01	Defendant undertook a title search.
2019-03-27	OS 67 was heard by Justice Aedit Abdullah.
2019-05-10	Defendant issued a fresh statutory demand.
2019-07-23	Defendant filed a Bill of Costs (BC 95/2019).
2019-08-20	Plaintiff appointed Cairnhill Law LLC for the taxation proceedings.
2019-09-05	Defendant conducted a title search.
2019-09-18	Defendant asked Cairnhill Law if it had instructions to accept personal service.
2019-09-30	Defendant's clerk attempted personal service on the plaintiff.
2019-09-30	Statutory demand dated issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.
2019-10-01	Defendant's clerk attempted personal service on the plaintiff.
2019-10-04	Defendant placed an advertisement in the Straits Times.
2019-10-04	Defendant sent a copy of the notice of the SD to Cairnhill Law.
2019-10-22	Defendant sent a copy of the SD to Cairnhill Law.
2019-10-23	Cairnhill Law informed the defendant that they did not have instructions to accept service.
2019-10-29	Defendant filed the bankruptcy application (HC/B 2786/2019) against the plaintiff.
2019-10-29	Defendant sent copies of the cause papers filed in the bankruptcy application to Cairnhill Law.
2019-10-29	Defendant conducted an Enhanced Individual Search on the plaintiff.
2019-10-31	OSB 129 was filed by the plaintiff.
2019-11-19	The application was heard and dismissed by the assistant registrar.
2020-02-03	Date of judgment.
2020-04-29	Date of judgment.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Service of Statutory Demand
- Outcome: The court held that the statutory demand was validly served on the plaintiff by way of advertisement and email.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Substituted service
  - Service by advertisement
  - Service by email
Dispute of Debt
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff could not dispute the quantum of the debt because he did not apply for an order for taxation within the prescribed time limit.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Quantum of debt
  - Reasonableness of solicitor's fees
Cross Demand
- Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff's contention that he had a valid or genuine cross demand against the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of contract
  - Wrongful utilisation of deposits
Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court found it unnecessary to consider if an extension of time should be granted.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Delay in application
  - Reasons for delay
  - Prejudice

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of statutory demand
Extension of time to set aside statutory demand

9. Cause of Actions

Bankruptcy
Debt Recovery

10. Practice Areas

Bankruptcy
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Wong Kwei Cheong v ABN-AMRO Bank NV	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 31	Singapore	Cited regarding the requirement to advertise the entire statutory demand, not merely a notice of it, under r 96(4)(c) BR.
Re Rasmachayana Sulistyo (alias Chang Whe Ming), ex parte The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 483	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the requirements for service under the Bankruptcy Rules are circumscribed by pragmatism and not by an overtly rigid and technical approach.
Re: Wong Kin Heng Ex-parte: Imperial Steel Drum Manufacturers Sdn Bhd	High Court	Yes	[1998] SGHC 237	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the first two limbs in r 96(4) BR encapsulate the preferred methods of substituted service.
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 722	Singapore	Cited for the principle that taxation is the only judicial process by which a client can dispute the quantum of his solicitor’s bill.
Engelin Teh Practice LLC formerly known as Engelin Teh and Partners v Tan Sui Chuan	District Court	Yes	[2006] SGDC 2	Singapore	Cited regarding whether the plaintiff could dispute the quantum of the defendant’s fees notwithstanding that the plaintiff was no longer entitled to have the 26 October invoice taxed. The court distinguished this case.
Turner & Co (a firm) v O Paloma SA	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 4 All ER 353	England and Wales	Cited regarding whether a client was entitled to challenge the reasonableness of the sum claimed under common law notwithstanding that the period for invoking the taxation procedure under the relevant English legislation had expired. The court did not find this case persuasive.
Mohd Zain bin Abdullah v Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 446	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it will not suffice for a debtor to raise spurious allegations in order to fend off bankruptcy proceedings.
Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 103	Singapore	Cited regarding whether costs should be ordered against the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat Kwong	High Court	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 1204	Singapore	Cited to make the case that the threshold to obtain an extension of time was not a particularly high one.
Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong Branch	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 114	Singapore	Cited for the factors that the court should take into consideration when an application is made for an extension of time to set aside an SD.
Storey, David Ian Andrew v Planet Arkadia Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] SGHCR 7	Singapore	Cited in relation to substituted service under O 62 r 5 ROC.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(4)(d)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(1)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(2)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(3)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(4)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(4)(a)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(4)(b)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 96(4)(c)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 98(2)(e)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 98(2)(a)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 97(1)(a)
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed) r 97(3)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 62 r 5
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 62 r 5(4)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Bankruptcy Act	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Statutory demand
Bankruptcy
Substituted service
Taxation
Cross demand
Invoices
Last known address
Advertisement
Email
Extension of time

15.2 Keywords

Bankruptcy
Statutory Demand
Service
Debt
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Bankruptcy	95
Insolvency Law	90
Statutory Demand	90
Civil Procedure	50
Debt Recovery	40
Legal Profession Act	30
Summary Judgement	30
Costs	20

16. Subjects

Bankruptcy
Civil Procedure
Legal Profession