Da Hui Shipping v An Rong Shipping: Permission to Appeal under Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act
Da Hui Shipping (Pte) Ltd applied for permission to appeal against a decision dismissing its application against An Rong Shipping Pte Ltd, which is in liquidation. The Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore, comprising See Kee Oon JAD and Audrey Lim J, dismissed the application, holding that once permission is granted under s 133(1) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 to commence an action against a company in liquidation, that permission extends to any appeals arising from that action. The court directed Da Hui to file its notice of appeal within 14 days.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
PTA Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court held that once permission is granted to commence an action against a wound-up company, no further permission is needed for appeals.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Da Hui Shipping (Pte.) Ltd. (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Applicant | Corporation | PTA Application dismissed | Lost | |
| An Rong Shipping Pte. Ltd. (in liquidation) | Respondent | Corporation | PTA Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Audrey Lim | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Da Hui entered into a loan agreement with An Rong as joint and several borrowers.
- Bank of America N.A., Singapore Branch was the lender.
- The loan was split into three tranches for refinancing of three vessels.
- Da Hui's vessel was sold, and proceeds were applied to repay one tranche of the loan.
- An Rong's vessels were subject to admiralty in rem proceedings and judicial sale.
- Da Hui commenced OA 418 seeking a declaration that An Rong was indebted to it.
- The Judge granted permission to commence OA 418 but dismissed the prayers for the Declarations.
5. Formal Citations
- Da Hui Shipping (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v An Rong Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation), Appellate Division / Originating Application No 58 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 6
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether permission is required to proceed with an appeal against a company where the lower court previously granted permission to commence action or proceeding against the company
- Outcome: The court held that permission is not required to appeal against a decision arising from an action or proceeding, where permission to proceed with or commence that action or proceeding had previously been granted by a court under s 133(1) of the IRDA.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Winding up
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Korea Asset Management Corp v Daewoo Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 671 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale of the leave requirement under s 262(3) of the Companies Act. |
| An Guang Shipping Pte Ltd (judicial managers appointed) and others v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 1232 | Singapore | Endorsed the court’s observations in Korea Asset Management in relation to s 133(1) of the IRDA. |
| Caltong (Australia) Pty Ltd (formerly known as Tong Tien See Holding (Australia) Pty Ltd) and another v Tong Tien See Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 94 | Singapore | Considered the question of leave in the context of s 76(1)(c)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Act and held that once leave is obtained to commence an action against a bankrupt debtor, that leave should hold good until the final determination of the proceeding, including any appeal. |
| Overseas Union Bank v Lew Keh Lam | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 219 | Singapore | Stated that the purpose of s 76(1)(c)(ii) was to prevent the liquidators or administrator’s task from being made more difficult due to a scramble among creditors in taking action or obtaining decrees against the debtor or his assets. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 19 r 26 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 18 r 29 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 18 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 18 r 26 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 133(1) Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018
- Permission to appeal
- Winding up
- Liquidation
- Originating Application
15.2 Keywords
- Insolvency
- Appeal
- Liquidation
- Singapore
- Shipping
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Insolvency Law | 90 |
| Winding Up | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Shipping Disputes | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Arbitration | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Insolvency
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals