Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah: Appeal on Statutory Demand in Bankruptcy Proceedings

In Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mr. Chia Kok Kee's appeal against a decision to dismiss his application to set aside a statutory demand issued by Mdm Tan Wah. The court found that Mr. Chia's alleged cross claim against Mdm Tan, regarding the disposal of shares in a PRC company, did not raise any triable issues and was an afterthought. The court ordered Mr. Chia to pay indemnity costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a statutory demand in bankruptcy. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no triable issues in the alleged cross claim.

1.7 Decision Date

1 December 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chia Kok Kee	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lim Tean of Carson Law Chambers
Tan Wah	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Cai Enhuai Amos of Yuen Law LLC Lim Yun Heng of Yuen Law LLC Jolene Song Zhu Yi of Yuen Law LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
Debbie Ong Siew Ling	Judge of the Appellate Division	No
See Kee Oon	Judge of the Appellate Division	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lim Tean	Carson Law Chambers
Cai Enhuai Amos	Yuen Law LLC
Lim Yun Heng	Yuen Law LLC
Jolene Song Zhu Yi	Yuen Law LLC

4. Facts

Mr. Chia and Mdm Tan are shareholders of HX Investment Pte Ltd.
Disputes arose between Mr. Chia and Mdm Tan, resulting in multiple legal proceedings.
A PRC company, SND, was incorporated as the investment vehicle.
A restructuring plan for SND was approved, leading to the disposal of the Investment.
Mr. Chia alleged that Mdm Tan sold the Investment without his agreement and received compensation.
Mr. Chia filed HC/OSB 108/2023 to set aside the statutory demand.
Mr. Chia lodged a complaint to the CCDI against the judge in the People’s Court of Dujiangyan, Ms Xu and SGSDEPS’s legal representative.

5. Formal Citations

Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah, Civil Appeal No 58 of 2024, [2024] SGHC(A) 36

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1995-01-01	Mr. Chia sought potential co-investors in a joint venture.
1995-05-01	Mr. Chia and Mdm Tan agreed to invest in a joint venture.
1995-06-14	HX Investment Pte Ltd was incorporated.
2005-01-01	HC/S 558/2005 was filed by Mr. Chia.
2007-01-01	Mr. Chia's appeal to the Court of Appeal in CA/CA 127/2007 was dismissed.
2010-01-01	Mr. Chia filed CA/OS 331/2010.
2011-01-01	Mr. Chia commenced HC/S 97/2011.
2011-01-01	Mr. Chia filed CA/CA 158/2011.
2018-04-16	SGSDEPS filed a bankruptcy application against SND in the PRC.
2020-09-11	Mr Chia had a telephone conversation with Ms. Xu Yi.
2021-05-11	Ms. Xu informed Mr. Chia that Mdm Tan had agreed in principle to the agreement for Tongda to buy out HX’s Investment in SND.
2021-09-06	The restructuring plan was approved at a creditors’ meeting.
2021-09-10	The restructuring plan was approved by the People’s Court of Dujiangyan City, Sichuan Province, PRC.
2021-11-16	Mr Chia wrote a letter to Mdm Tan.
2023-06-22	Mr Chia lodged a complaint to the CCDI.
2023-11-06	The Court of Appeal allowed Mdm Tan's application in CA/SUM 25/2023 to lift the global stay order.
2023-12-07	Mr. Chia received a statutory demand from Mdm Tan.
2023-12-19	Mr. Chia filed HC/OSB 108/2023 to set aside the statutory demand.
2024-02-01	An AR dismissed OSB 108.
2024-02-15	Mr. Chia filed HC/RA 33/2024 to appeal against the decision of the AR in OSB 108.
2024-03-18	Mr. Chia obtained permission to file a further affidavit to adduce fresh evidence.
2024-04-15	Mr. Chia filed an affidavit.
2024-07-03	The Judge dismissed Mr. Chia’s appeal in RA 33.
2024-07-15	Mr. Chia filed the present appeal in AD/CA 58/2024.
2024-09-05	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Setting Aside Statutory Demand
- Outcome: The court held that the debtor's cross claim did not raise any triable issues and dismissed the appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Valid counterclaim
  - Set-off
  - Cross demand

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside statutory demand
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Fraud
Conspiracy to injure
Harm

10. Practice Areas

Bankruptcy Litigation
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah	High Court	Yes	[2024] SGHC 216	Singapore	The judgment under appeal, the grounds of decision of which are set out in this case.
Chia Kok Kee v HX Investment Pte Ltd (So Lai Har (alias Chia Choon), third party in issue) (Tan Wah, third party in counterclaim)	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 164	Singapore	Cited as part of the history of legal proceedings between the parties.
Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah and others	High Court	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 352	Singapore	Cited as part of the history of legal proceedings between the parties.
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 a bankruptcy court is generally not in the best position to adjudicate on the merits of a commercial dispute without a proper ventilation of the evidential disputes through a trial.
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 491	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a bankruptcy court is generally not in the best position to adjudicate on the merits of a commercial dispute without a proper ventilation of the evidential disputes through a trial.
Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jalalludin bin Abdullah and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court retains a residual discretion under r 68(2)(e) to set aside a statutory demand even if it is satisfied that there are no triable issues.
Tjong Very Sumito and others v Antig Investments Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 732	Singapore	Cited for the principle that indemnity costs are warranted when a party pursues an entirely unmeritorious appeal.
Tan Chin Yew Joseph v Saxo Capital Markets Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 274	Singapore	Cited for the principle that indemnity costs are warranted when a cross claim is irreconcilable with the contemporaneous documents and prior conduct.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021 (2020 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Personal Insolvency) Rules 2020	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Statutory demand
Cross claim
Bankruptcy
Restructuring plan
Investment
Creditors’ Meeting
Global stay order
Triable issues
Indemnity costs

15.2 Keywords

bankruptcy
statutory demand
cross claim
insolvency
appeal
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Insolvency Law	95
Winding Up	60
Fraud and Deceit	50
Civil Litigation	40
Commercial Disputes	30
Criminal Procedure	30

16. Subjects

Bankruptcy
Insolvency
Civil Procedure