Tamar Perry v Jacques Esculier: Interpleader, Amendment of Pleadings, Actions in Rem and In Personam

In Tamar Perry v Jacques Henri Georges Esculier, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed an appeal concerning interpleader proceedings related to a dispute over funds held in a DBS bank account. The appellants, Tamar Perry and Solid Fund Private Foundation, claimed beneficial ownership of the funds, while the respondents, Jacques Henri Georges Esculier and Bonnet Esculier Servane Michele Thais, also asserted ownership. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' proposed claims under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (CPO) and Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA) did not fall within the court's interpleader jurisdiction, as they were personal rather than proprietary claims. The court also denied the joinder of Lexinta Group Ltd and the addition of a claim under the Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA).

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal judgment regarding interpleader proceedings, amendment of pleadings, and the distinction between actions in rem and in personam.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tamar PerryAppellant, ApplicantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Mark Hubbard of New Square Chambers
Solid Fund Private FoundationAppellant, ApplicantTrustAppeal dismissedLost
Mark Hubbard of New Square Chambers
Jacques Henri Georges EsculierRespondentIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
Bonnet Esculier Servane Michele ThaisRespondentIndividualAppeal dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Beverley McLachlinInternational JudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jonathan Lim Shi CaoPremier Law LLC
Yee Mun Howe GeraldPremier Law LLC
Mark HubbardNew Square Chambers
Colin LiewDuxton Hill Chambers (Singapore Practice Group)
Kam Su Cheun AurillLegal Clinic LLC
Lim Rui Hsien EstherLegal Clinic LLC
Valerie Thio Shu JunLegal Clinic LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellants claimed beneficial ownership of funds held in a DBS account in Singapore.
  2. The respondents also claimed ownership of the same funds.
  3. DBS commenced interpleader proceedings due to the competing claims.
  4. The appellants sought to amend their Statement of Claim to include claims under the CPO and CLPA.
  5. The appellants sought to add Lexinta Group Ltd as a party to the suit.
  6. The funds in dispute originated from transfers made by LG Ltd to the DBS account.
  7. The appellants alleged a Ponzi scheme operated by Badilla via the Lexinta Group.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Perry, Tamar and another v Esculier, Jacques Henri Georges and another and another matter, Civil Appeal No 12 of 2021, [2021] SGCA(I) 5

6. Timeline

DateEvent
LG Ltd sent various sums of money to the DBS Account.
LG Ltd sent various sums of money to the DBS Account.
DBS commenced OS 1016.
OS 1016 was heard before Dedar Singh Gill JC.
The first appellant filed a Statement of Claim in OS 1016.
Gill JC made HC/ORC 1975/2020.
The appellants commenced the High Court suit (which later became Suit 4).
The respondents' counsel wrote to the appellants indicating that the respondents intended to amend their Defence and Counterclaim.
An application (“SUM 55”) was filed.
The respondents applied to strike out the appellants’ claim in unjust enrichment.
The Judge allowed the respondents’ striking out application and struck out the appellants’ claim in unjust enrichment.
Grounds of Decision issued.
A court order was made that in effect directed that a new action be filed in the High Court.
Court hearing.
Grounds of decision delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpleader Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The Court held that the CPO and CLPA claims did not fall within the Court’s interpleader jurisdiction because they were personal claims, not proprietary claims.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proprietary vs. Personal Claims
      • Scope of Interpleader Relief
  2. Amendment of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The Court denied the appellants' application to amend their pleadings to include the CPO and CLPA claims, as well as to join LG Ltd as a party.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Joinder of Parties
      • Addition of Claims
  3. Voidability of Dispositions to Defraud Creditors
    • Outcome: The Court held that claims under s 60 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (CPO) are personal claims, not proprietary claims, and therefore do not fall within the Court's interpleader jurisdiction.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
  2. Recovery of Funds

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
De La Rue v Hernu, Peron & Stockwell, LimitedEnglish Court of AppealYes[1936] 2 KB 164England and WalesCited as the starting point of the law on interpleader, clarifying that an action commenced as part of interpleader proceedings is not a freestanding action but a proprietary dispute.
Precious Shipping Public Co Ltd and others v OW Bunker Far East (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1229SingaporeCited as the leading case on interpleader proceedings in Singapore, emphasizing that the power to grant interpleader relief is statutorily conferred and available only when specific conditions are met.
Wong Ser Wan v Ng Bok Eng Holdings Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 365SingaporeCited for the principle that an individual creditor can commence action under s 73B of the CLP Act as long as the fruits of the action are not kept for themselves alone.
Regal Castings Ltd v LightbodyNew Zealand Supreme CourtYes[2008] NZSC 87New ZealandCited to determine whether the CPO claim was a personal one, highlighting that an application under s 60 of the NZ Act is not a claim in rem and does not assert defect in title.
Commissioner of Taxation v Oswal (No 6)Federal Court of AustraliaYes[2016] FCA 762AustraliaCited to determine whether the CPO claim was a personal one, highlighting that the statutory remedy under s 89 of the WA Act does not seek to impugn the title to property.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) v Conway and anotherPrivy CouncilYes[2020] AC 1111Cayman IslandsCited for the proposition that if a statute is silent as to the remedies available where a voidable transaction is set aside, the remedies available are those under general law, and include proprietary remedies.
Global Currency Exchange Network Ltd v Osage 1 LtdUnknownYes[2019] 1 WLR 5865England and WalesCited for the proposition that even if the CPO Claim was regarded as a prior legal step to enable the Appellants to establish a direct proprietary right to the Monies, it was a claim which could and should be determined in the Suit.
Commonwealth of Australia v Peacekeeper International FZC UAEHigh Court of JusticeYes[2008] EWHC 1220 (QB)England and WalesCited for the principle that there is very little scope within Order 17 itself for the court to transform interpleader proceedings into a substantive action.
Stephenson Harwood LLP v Medien Patentverwaltung AG and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[2021] 1 WLR 1775England and WalesCited for the principle that the courts have been careful not to regard submission to the jurisdiction in the case of a stakeholder application as a submission to the jurisdiction for all purposes.
Eschger Co v Morrison, Kekewich CoUnknownYes6 TLR 145England and WalesCited for the principle that the court doubted very much whether the court had the power to transform an interpleader issue into a wholly general action.
Frazer v WalkerPrivy CouncilYes[1967] 1 AC 569New ZealandCited for the availability of in personam relief.
Breskvar v WallHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1971) 126 CLR 376AustraliaCited for reconciling the existence of exceptions to indefeasibility with the purpose of the Torrens legislation.
Alderson v TempleUnknownYes4 Burr 2235 [(1768) 96 ER 384]England and WalesCited for the proprietorial approach followed in the context of personal bankruptcy.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Conveyancing and Property OrdinanceHong Kong
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (No 40 of 2018)Singapore
English Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20) (UK)England and Wales
Statute of 13 Eliz 1571 (c 5)England and Wales
New Zealand Property Law Act 1952 (No. 51, 2007 Reprint)New Zealand
Property Law Act 1969 (WA)Australia
Cayman Companies Law (2013 Revision)Cayman Islands

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interpleader
  • Proprietary Claim
  • Personal Claim
  • Ponzi Scheme
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Voidable Disposition
  • Amendment of Pleadings
  • Joinder of Parties

15.2 Keywords

  • Interpleader
  • Amendment of Pleadings
  • Actions in Rem
  • Actions in Personam
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Ponzi Scheme
  • Singapore Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Interpleader85
Civil Practice75
Commercial Disputes30
Commercial Law30
Fiduciary Duties30
Fraud and Deceit30
Contract Law30
Arbitration25
Company Law20
Unjust Enrichment20
Estoppel20
Insolvency Law20
Bankruptcy15

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Interpleader
  • Amendment of Pleadings
  • Proprietary Rights
  • Personal Rights