ST Group Co Ltd v Sanum Investments Ltd: Setting Aside Judgment and Garnishee Orders After Appeal

ST Group Co Ltd, Sithat Xaysoulivong, and ST Vegas Co Ltd appealed against Sanum Investments Limited following a previous decision where the Court of Appeal set aside an order granting leave to enforce an arbitral award. The appellants sought consequential orders, including setting aside the judgment and final garnishee orders, and the return of garnished sums. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and final garnishee orders, and ordered Sanum to return the garnished sums, subject to directions from the ICC Tribunal regarding an escrow arrangement and interest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed; Judgment and Final Garnishee Orders set aside; Sanum to return garnished sums.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal to set aside judgment and garnishee orders after initial leave order was overturned. Court addresses inherent powers and restitution.

1.7 Decision Date

13 January 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sanum Investments Limited	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lin Weiqi Wendy of WongPartnership LLP Chong Wan Yee Monica (Zhang Wanyu) of WongPartnership LLP Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC of WongPartnership LLP Teh Zi Ling Stephanie (Zheng Ziling) of WongPartnership LLP
ST Group Co Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Tan Boon Yong Thomas of Haridass Ho & Partners Kristin Ng Wei Ting of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Tay Bok Chong Alvin of Haridass Ho & Partners Francis Xavier s/o Subramaniam Xavier Augustine SC of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Tan Hua Chong Edwin (Chen Huacong) of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Sithat Xaysoulivong	Applicant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Tan Boon Yong Thomas of Haridass Ho & Partners Kristin Ng Wei Ting of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Tay Bok Chong Alvin of Haridass Ho & Partners Francis Xavier s/o Subramaniam Xavier Augustine SC of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Tan Hua Chong Edwin (Chen Huacong) of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
ST Vegas Co Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Tan Boon Yong Thomas of Haridass Ho & Partners Kristin Ng Wei Ting of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Tay Bok Chong Alvin of Haridass Ho & Partners Francis Xavier s/o Subramaniam Xavier Augustine SC of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Tan Hua Chong Edwin (Chen Huacong) of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Judith Prakash	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Quentin Loh	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lin Weiqi Wendy	WongPartnership LLP
Chong Wan Yee Monica (Zhang Wanyu)	WongPartnership LLP
Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC	WongPartnership LLP
Teh Zi Ling Stephanie (Zheng Ziling)	WongPartnership LLP
Tan Boon Yong Thomas	Haridass Ho & Partners
Kristin Ng Wei Ting	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tay Bok Chong Alvin	Haridass Ho & Partners
Francis Xavier s/o Subramaniam Xavier Augustine SC	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tan Hua Chong Edwin (Chen Huacong)	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

Sanum commenced SIAC Arbitration against the Lao Parties for breaches of contract.
Sanum obtained a SIAC Award against the Lao Parties.
Sanum commenced HC/OS 890/2016 seeking leave to enforce the SIAC Award.
Leave was granted to enforce the SIAC Award.
Sanum obtained HC/JUD 792/2016 against the Lao Parties for US$200m as damages for breach of contract.
Final Garnishee Orders were granted, and sums were garnished from UOB.
The Court of Appeal set aside the Leave Order granted to Sanum.
Sanum commenced a Macau-seated arbitration with the ICC International Court of Arbitration.

5. Formal Citations

ST Group Co Ltd and others v Sanum Investments Ltd, Civil Appeal No 113 of 2018 (Summons No 44 of 2021), [2022] SGCA 2

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-09-23	Sanum commenced SIAC Arbitration
2016-08-22	Sanum obtained the SIAC Award
2016-09-01	Sanum commenced HC/OS 890/2016 seeking leave to enforce the SIAC Award
2016-09-07	Leave was granted by the Assistant Registrar in HC/ORC 6107/2016
2016-09-16	Sanum filed HC/SUM 4512/2016 for an order that the Lao Parties may apply to set aside the Leave Order within 14 days after service of the same
2016-09-20	Order was granted on in HC/ORC 6397/2016
2016-11-23	Sanum obtained HC/JUD 792/2016 against the Lao Parties
2016-11-29	Garnishee application HC/SUM 5740/2016 made
2016-12-27	ST Group’s shares in S3T Pte Ltd seized by the Sheriff
2017-01-13	ST Group and Mr Sithat filed HC/SUM 202/2017
2017-01-18	Final garnishee order HC/ORC 477/2017 granted
2017-03-23	ST Group and Mr Sithat filed HC/SUM 1331/2017
2017-06-13	Garnishee application HC/SUM 2695/2017 made
2017-06-16	ST Vegas and STV Enterprise filed an application in HC/SUM 2774/2017
2017-07-05	Final garnishee order HC/ORC 4233/2017 granted
2017-07-12	Garnishee application HC/SUM 3210/2017 made
2017-07-13	Final garnishee order HC/ORC 4443/2017 granted
2017-10-26	HC/SUM 4933/2017 filed
2018-01-01	Hearings fixed for SUM 4933/2017
2018-06-18	Justice Belinda Ang's decision in HC/SUM 4933/2017
2019-11-18	Court of Appeal issued judgment in CA 113 and CA 114
2019-12-11	Sanum filed a mediation request with the Macau office of the ICC International Centre of Alternative Dispute Resolution
2020-01-29	Sanum commenced a Macau-seated arbitration with the ICC International Court of Arbitration
2020-02-21	The Lao Parties filed HC/SUM 846/2020
2020-06-05	The Lao Parties brought HC/SUM 2318/2020
2020-07-27	Case Management Conference held to deal with the drafting of the order of court
2020-07-30	Orders granted by consent in HC/ORC 4140/2020 and HC/ORC 4141/2020
2020-08-20	CA/ORC 133/2020 extracted
2020-09-04	Mr Sithat applied to the High Court for the return of the Garnished Sums in HC/SUM 3785/2020
2020-11-09	Application heard on 9 and 12 November 2020 by the Judge
2020-11-12	The Judge held that under O 92 rr 4 and 5 of the ROC, she did not have the power to make the consequential orders sought in SUM 3785/2020, and dismissed the application
2020-11-23	Mr Sithat made his request for consequential orders to this court by way of correspondence
2020-11-30	Sanum renewed its application to the ICC Tribunal for interim measures
2021-01-25	The Interim Measures Application was heard by the ICC Tribunal
2021-03-26	The ICC Tribunal granted the Interim Measures
2021-04-09	SUM 44 was filed

7. Legal Issues

Setting Aside Judgment
- Outcome: The court exercised its inherent powers to set aside the Judgment, finding that the substratum of the Judgment had ceased to exist.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] 1 SLR 206
Setting Aside Final Garnishee Orders
- Outcome: The court exercised its inherent powers to set aside the Final Garnishee Orders, finding that the substratum of the orders had ceased to exist.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] 1 SLR 206
Return of Garnished Sums
- Outcome: The court ordered Sanum to return the garnished sums, subject to directions from the ICC Tribunal regarding an escrow arrangement.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1871] LR 3 PC 465
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 38
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 609
  - [2021] 2 SLR 424
  - [1997] 1 WLR 1627
  - (1984) 55 ALR 185
Interest on Garnished Sums
- Outcome: The court made no order as to the payment of interest on the Garnished Sums and directed the parties to refer this issue to be placed before and decided by the ICC Tribunal.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 38
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 609
  - [2015] 5 SLR 482

8. Remedies Sought

Setting Aside Judgment
Setting Aside Final Garnishee Orders
Return of Garnished Sums
Interest on Garnished Sums

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Restitution

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Arbitration

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
ST Group Co Ltd and others v Sanum Investments Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 1	Singapore	This case is the prior appeal in the same matter, where the court allowed the appeal and set aside the leave order. It forms the basis for the current application for consequential orders.
Sanum Investments Ltd v ST Group Co, Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 225	Singapore	This case is the High Court decision that was appealed in CA 113. It discusses the seat of arbitration and procedural irregularities.
Harmonious Coretrades Pte Ltd v United Integrated Services Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 206	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has inherent power to set aside a court order where the substratum or foundation of the order has been destroyed.
Tan Ng Kuang Nicky (the duly appointed joint and several liquidator of Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)) and others v Metax Eco Solutions Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1135	Singapore	Cited in relation to the conduct of the parties and reserving positions.
Rodger v Comptoir D’Escompte de Paris	Privy Council	Yes	[1871] LR 3 PC 465	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that a successful appellant is entitled to restitution, including repayment of money paid with interest.
Singapore Airlines Ltd and another v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38	Singapore	Cited for the analysis of restitution in deciding whether interest should be ordered on a judgment sum which was returned upon a successful appeal.
Crédit Agricole Indosuez v Banque Nationale de Paris	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 609	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a successful appellant can compel the respondent to restore all benefits gained through the judgment which has been reversed, including interest.
Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 424	Singapore	Cited for the principle of restitution of benefits conferred pursuant to a judgment that is subsequently reversed.
Nykredit Mortgage Bank plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1997] 1 WLR 1627	England	Cited for the principle that when ordering repayment, the court is unravelling the practical consequences of orders made by the courts below.
Commonwealth v McCormack	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1984) 55 ALR 185	Australia	Cited for the principle that an appellant who has satisfied a judgment for the payment of money is entitled, on the reversal of the judgment, to repayment of the money paid by him with interest.
Re Iris McLaren (No 2)	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	[2019] NSWSC 1894	Australia	Distinguished on the facts; Sanum argued it supports the position that the claim for return of the Garnished Sums cannot be dealt with summarily on an application for consequential orders.
Production Spray Painting and Panel Beating Pty Ltd v Newnham (No 2)	Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	(1992) 27 NSWLR 659	Australia	Cited for the principle that in a case such as this an order for restitution follows as of course from the quashing of the orders of the Industrial Commission and the Court has no discretion to withhold such relief.
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 482	Singapore	Cited for the court's inherent powers to make the necessary orders to give effect to the underlying policy of unravelling the effect of court orders that have been found to be incorrect or which have been set aside.
R v Jones	N/A	Yes	R v Jones (1722) 1 Str 474 (93 ER 643)	England	Cited for the principle that an order for restitution follows as of course from the quashing of the orders of the Industrial Commission and the Court has no discretion to withhold such relief.
R v Wilson	N/A	Yes	R v Wilson (1836) 3 Ad and E 830 (111 ER 629)	England	Cited for the principle that an order for restitution follows as of course from the quashing of the orders of the Industrial Commission and the Court has no discretion to withhold such relief.
Meerkin v Rossett Pty Ltd	N/A	Yes	Meerkin v Rossett Pty Ltd [1999] 2 VR 31	Australia	Cited for the principle that the court should consider what does justice as between the appellant and the respondent to an appeal.
Cox v Hakes	N/A	Yes	Cox v Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506	N/A	Cited for the principle that Restitutio in integrum is the right of every successful appellant
Merchant Banking Co v Maud	N/A	Yes	Merchant Banking Co v Maud (1874) LR 18 Eq 659	N/A	Cited for the principle that An appellant who has satisfied a judgment for the payment of money is entitled, on the reversal of the judgment, to repayment of the money paid by him with interest

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Garnishee Orders
Garnished Sums
Leave Order
SIAC Award
ICC Arbitration
Inherent Powers
Restitution
Substratum
Interim Measures
Escrow Arrangement

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
garnishee
restitution
Singapore
judgment
appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	90
Judgments and Orders	90
Arbitration	60
International Arbitration	50
International Commercial Arbitration	40

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Arbitration
Restitution