Madina Beevi v M Akbar: Bankruptcy Order Appeal Based on IRDA s 316(3)(e)

Madina Beevi Abdul Jameel filed a bankruptcy application against M Akbar bin Mohamed Ibrahim. The Assistant Registrar made a bankruptcy order against M Akbar, who then appealed. Goh Yihan J of the General Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no 'sufficient cause' under s 316(3)(e) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 to dismiss the bankruptcy application. The court emphasized that a debtor's conscious decision to challenge a bankruptcy application, leading to unsuitability for the Debt Repayment Scheme, generally does not constitute 'sufficient cause'.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the 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

Appeal against bankruptcy order. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no 'sufficient cause' under s 316(3)(e) of the IRDA to dismiss the bankruptcy application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Official AssigneeNon-partyGovernment AgencyNeutralNeutral
Lim Jian Yi of Insolvency & Public Trustee’s Office
Madina Beevi Abdul JameelRespondent, ClaimantIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
M Akbar bin Mohamed IbrahimAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim Jian YiInsolvency & Public Trustee’s Office
Anand s/o K ThiagarajanAKT Legal Chambers
Mohammed Shakirin bin Abdul RashidAdel Law LLC
Umar Abdullah bin MazeliAdel Law LLC
Nur Amalina binte SaparinAdel Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The respondent issued a statutory demand against the appellant for $32,655.96.
  2. The statutory demand was based on a judgment obtained by the respondent in a counterclaim against the appellant.
  3. The appellant failed to comply with an unless order, leading to the judgment against him.
  4. The appellant did not comply with the statutory demand and failed to set it aside.
  5. The respondent filed a bankruptcy application against the appellant.
  6. The Official Assignee assessed the appellant's suitability for the Debt Repayment Scheme.
  7. The appellant informed the Official Assignee that he wanted to challenge the bankruptcy application and did not agree with the Debt Repayment Scheme.
  8. The Official Assignee issued a Notice of Unsuitability for Debt Repayment Scheme to the appellant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Madina Beevi Abdul Jameel v M Akbar bin Mohamed Ibrahim, Bankruptcy No 3631 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 102 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 199

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Statutory demand issued by the respondent
Judgment obtained by the respondent in a counterclaim against the appellant in MC/OC 1855/2022
Unless order made in MC 1855
Respondent filed B 3631 to seek a bankruptcy order against the appellant
B 3631 adjourned for the OA to assess the appellant’s suitability for the DRS
OA sent a Notice to File the Statement of Affairs to the appellant
Appellant submitted his Statement of Affairs and the I&E Statement
OA requested that the appellant resubmit the Statement of Affairs
Appellant emailed the OA, stating that he should not agree with the debt Restructuring scheme
Appellant received a telephone call from the OA about his assessment for the DRS
OA sent an email to the appellant with the Notice of Unsuitability for DRS
Appellant responded to the OA by email, stating that he may agree with the DRS if the court rejected by dispute/claims
Bankruptcy order made against the appellant in B 3631
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Dismissal of bankruptcy application for “sufficient cause”
    • Outcome: The court held that the debtor's alleged misunderstanding of the consequences of challenging the bankruptcy application did not constitute 'sufficient cause' to dismiss the application.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Debtor's misunderstanding of consequences of challenging bankruptcy application
      • Debtor's suitability for Debt Repayment Scheme
    • Related Cases:
      • [2023] SGHC 214

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Bankruptcy Order
  2. Dismissal of Bankruptcy Application

9. Cause of Actions

  • Bankruptcy

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
K Shanker Kumar v Nedumaran MuthukrishnanHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 214SingaporeDistinguished from the present case; the court found no 'sufficient cause' under s 316(3)(e) of the IRDA to dismiss a creditor’s bankruptcy application, unlike in K Shanker Kumar.
Mohd Zain bin Abdullah v Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 446SingaporeCited for the principle that the applicable standard for obtaining a dismissal of bankruptcy proceedings is no more than that for resisting a summary judgment application.
Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jalalludin bin Abdullah and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2013] 2 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the principle that s 65(2)(e) of the BA represents the court’s residual discretion to dismiss bankruptcy proceedings even if it is satisfied that there are no triable issues.
Tang Yong Kiat Rickie v Sinesinga Sdn Bhd (transferee to part of the assets of United Merchant Finance Bhd) and othersHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHCR 6SingaporeCited as instructive on the situations where the court’s residual discretion to dismiss bankruptcy proceedings can be invoked.
Re Latifah Bte Hussainsa, ex p Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau PinangN/AYes[2005] 2 MLJ 290MalaysiaCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the debtor has a reasonable prospect of being able to repay the debt.
Re MS WardN/AYes[1933] MLJ 69MalaysiaCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the debtor has a reasonable prospect of being able to repay the debt.
Stephen Wong Leong Kiong v HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd (formerly known as Hongkong Bank (M) Bhd)N/AYes[2011] 4 MLJ 207MalaysiaCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the date of the act of bankruptcy was wrongly stated.
Sama Credit & Leasing Sdn Bhd v Pegawai Pemegang Harta, MalaysiaN/AYes[1995] 1 MLJ 274MalaysiaCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because there is a subsisting bankruptcy order made against the debtor in the same jurisdiction and the creditor did not act in good faith in bringing a subsequent bankruptcy petition.
Re VictoriaN/AYes[1894] 2 QB 387England and WalesCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the judgment on which the debt is founded is unsound, unfair or in some manner defective.
Re DavenportN/AYes[1963] 1 WLR 817England and WalesCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the judgment on which the debt is founded is unsound, unfair or in some manner defective.
Re StrayN/AYes(1867) 22 Ch App 374England and WalesCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the creditor is estopped from petitioning for bankruptcy.
Re A Debtor (No 11 of 1935)N/AYes[1936] Ch 165England and WalesCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the creditor is estopped from petitioning for bankruptcy.
Re RobinsonN/AYes(1883) 22 Ch D 816England and WalesCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because it is certain, as opposed to probable, that the debtor has no assets nor is there any hope of assets to accrue in future.
Re Ross (a bankrupt) (No 2)N/AYes[2000] BPIR 636England and WalesCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because the effect of the bankruptcy order is to stifle a claim, with a real prospect of success, which the bankrupt might otherwise have been able to pursue against the petitioning and only creditor to which the debtor was indebted.
Bank of Scotland v BennettEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2004] EWCA Civ 988England and WalesCited as a foreign case where a bankruptcy petition was dismissed because there is or has been an abuse of the bankruptcy process by the creditor.
Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (Malaysia) v Ling Lee SoonHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 414SingaporeCited for the principle that in deciding whether to exercise the court’s power to dismiss a bankruptcy application for cause under s 65(2)(e) [of the BA], a court is entitled to take into account any factor.
Re MicklethwaiteEnglish High CourtYes[2003] BPIR 101England and WalesCited for the observation that the court’s power to adjourn or dismiss a bankruptcy petition is “unfettered” and “can be exercised if the making of a bankruptcy order might cause an injustice”.
Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha (alias Mai Jiaqi Natasha) v R ShiamalaHigh CourtYes[2024] 4 SLR 616SingaporeCited for the principle that while the court may show greater indulgence to a self-represented party, this indulgence is not to be expected as a matter of entitlement.
BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 83SingaporeCited for the principle that while the court may show greater indulgence to a self-represented party, this indulgence is not to be expected as a matter of entitlement.
Nobarani v MariconteHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2018) 359 ALR 31AustraliaCited for the principle that the absence of legal representation on one side ought not to induce a court to deprive the other side of one jot of its lawful entitlement.
Sundar Venkatachalam v Bharathi d/o SubbiahHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHCR 6SingaporeCited for the underlying rationale of para 160(2) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, that the bankruptcy court’s function at the hearing of an application to set aside a statutory demand is not to conduct a full hearing of the dispute and adjudicate on the merits of the creditor’s claim.
Wong Kwei Chong v ABN-AMRO Bank NVHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 31SingaporeCited for the principle that the bankruptcy court’s function at the hearing of an application to set aside a statutory demand is not to conduct a full hearing of the dispute and adjudicate on the merits of the creditor’s claim.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 316 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore
Section 316(3)(e) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore
Section 316(9) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bankruptcy Order
  • Statutory Demand
  • Debt Repayment Scheme
  • Sufficient Cause
  • Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act
  • Official Assignee
  • Unless Order
  • Statement of Affairs
  • Notice of Unsuitability

15.2 Keywords

  • Bankruptcy
  • Insolvency
  • Debt Repayment Scheme
  • Statutory Demand
  • Appeal
  • Singapore
  • IRDA
  • Official Assignee

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bankruptcy95
Restructuring and Dissolution90
Debt Repayment Scheme70
Administrative Law40

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Insolvency
  • Civil Procedure