Teunis Eigenraam v Ngng Pte Ltd: Winding Up Application and Procedural Irregularity under IRDA
In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Lee Seiu Kin J heard an application by Teunis Eigenraam to wind up Ngng Pte Ltd. The application included prayers for leave to amend the Originating Application, an order under s 264(4) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) regarding a procedural irregularity, and an adjournment. The procedural irregularity concerned an incorrect notice period in the winding up application advertisement. The court granted the prayers sought, finding that the procedural irregularity did not cause substantial injustice and allowing an adjournment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Prayers sought by the applicant granted.
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Winding up application concerning procedural irregularity in advertisement. Court granted order under s 264(4)(a) of the IRDA, finding no substantial injustice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teunis Eigenraam | Applicant | Individual | Prayers granted | Won | |
| Ngng Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Winding up application proceeds | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chan Chee Yun Timothy | Pereira & Tan LLC |
4. Facts
- The applicant sought to wind up the respondent company.
- The applicant took out an advertisement in the Straits Times with an incorrect notice period.
- The advertisement stated that notice of intention to appear had to be served one clear working day before the hearing.
- Rule 66(2)(b) read with Rule 70 of the Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring Rules requires three clear working days.
- The applicant applied for an order under s 264(4) of the IRDA that the procedural irregularity did not render the winding up application invalid.
- The respondent company had two shareholders: the applicant and Ms Van Malleghem.
- Ms Van Malleghem was also a director of the respondent company and had legal counsel.
5. Formal Citations
- Teunis Eigenraam v Ngng Pte Ltd, Companies Winding Up No 92 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 154
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Procedural Irregularity
- Outcome: The court held that the error in the advertisement was a procedural irregularity and granted the order sought under s 264(4)(a) of the IRDA.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-compliance with form requirements for advertisements
8. Remedies Sought
- Winding Up Order
- Order declaring procedural irregularity did not render the application invalid
- Adjournment
9. Cause of Actions
- Winding Up
10. Practice Areas
- Winding Up
- Corporate Insolvency
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercantile & Maritime Investments Pte Ltd v Iceberg Energy Pte Ltd and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 64 | Singapore | Cited to define procedural irregularity under s 264 of the IRDA. |
| Thio Keng Poon v Thio Syn Pyn and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 143 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of showing that the irregularity in question is of a procedural nature rests on the party seeking to uphold the proceeding. |
| Cordiant Communications (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Communications Group Holdings Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2005] NSWSC 1005 | Australia | Cited with approval for the proposition on the distinction between procedural and substantive irregularities. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Winding Up
- Procedural Irregularity
- Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018
- Corporate Insolvency and Restructuring Rules
- s 264(4) IRDA
- s 264(6) IRDA
- Substantial Injustice
15.2 Keywords
- Winding Up
- Insolvency
- Procedural Irregularity
- Singapore
- IRDA
- Corporate Insolvency
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Winding Up | 95 |
| Insolvency Law | 75 |
| Company Law | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Insolvency
- Winding Up
- Civil Procedure