Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group: Stay of Enforcement and Winding-Up Application

In the Singapore International Commercial Court, Renault SAS obtained judgment against Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd for €5,250,025.61 plus interest. Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd appealed and applied for a stay of enforcement of the judgment and an injunction restraining Renault SAS from presenting a winding-up application. The court granted a conditional stay of enforcement, requiring Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd to pay the judgment sum and interest into court. No order as to costs was made.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Enforcement of the judgment is stayed on condition of payment into court of the judgment sum and interest calculated to 31 July 2024.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Renault obtained judgment against Liberty Engineering. Liberty Engineering appealed and sought a stay of enforcement and an injunction. The court granted a conditional stay.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Liberty Engineering Group Pte LtdDefendant, Appellant, ApplicantCorporationConditional Stay GrantedPartial
Renault SASClaimant, RespondentCorporationConditional Stay GrantedPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Roger GilesInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Renault obtained judgment against LEG for €5,250,025.61 and interest.
  2. LEG appealed against the decision.
  3. LEG applied for a stay of enforcement of the judgment.
  4. LEG applied for an injunction restraining Renault from presenting a winding-up application against it.
  5. Renault agreed to a stay on condition that the judgment sum be paid into court.
  6. LEG declined to pay the judgment sum into court.
  7. Renault undertook not to file a winding up application against LEG on the basis of the Judgment Debt until LEG’s appeal is disposed of.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd and another matter, Originating Application No 9 of 2023 (Summons No 18 of 2024) and Originating Application No 7 of 2024, [2024] SGHC(I) 22

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Judgment was issued in Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd and another matter [2024] SGHC(I) 6.
Renault’s solicitors served on LEG a statutory demand for payment of the judgment debt and interest.
LEG’s solicitors advised that they had instructions to file an appeal in respect of the judgment.
Renault’s solicitors advised that Renault was prepared to agree not to execute on the Judgment on condition that LEG provide satisfactory security.
LEG filed an appeal against the judgment.
LEG’s solicitors advised that LEG did not agree to the proposal for security, and that it would be filing applications for an injunction and for a stay of enforcement of the judgment.
LEG filed applications for an injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding-up application and for a stay of enforcement of the judgment.
Renault’s solicitors advised that Renault was prepared to agree not to execute the judgment or apply to wind up LEG pending the resolution of the appeal, if LEG provided satisfactory proof that it had assets of the value of the judgment debt with interest.
OA 365 was transferred to the SICC, where it was renumbered SIC/OA 7/2024.
Renault filed an affidavit of Mr Bruno Moustacchi.
A further affidavit of Mr Howard was provided in draft.
Hearing of the application.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Stay of Enforcement Pending Appeal
    • Outcome: The court granted a conditional stay of enforcement, requiring the judgment debtor to pay the judgment sum and interest into court.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1991] 2 SLR(R) 869
  2. Injunction Restraining Winding-Up Application
    • Outcome: The court did not make a restraining order as Renault SAS undertook not to file a winding up application against LEG on the basis of the Judgment Debt until LEG’s appeal is disposed of.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 1 SLR(R) 135

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Stay of enforcement of judgment
  2. Injunction restraining winding-up application

9. Cause of Actions

  • Claim under a guarantee

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Commercial Law

11. Industries

  • Engineering
  • Automotive

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
LKM Investment Holdings Pte Ltd v Cathay Theatres LtdHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 135SingaporeCited regarding a winding-up application founded on a bona fide disputed debt being an abuse of process.
Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd and another matterSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2024] SGHC(I) 6SingaporeThe judgment in which Renault obtained judgment against LEG.
Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd v LKM Investment Holdings Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 15SingaporeCited as a submission distinguishing this case from Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd v LKM Investment. Holdings Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR(R) 15 (“Cathay Theatres”), which referred (at [15]) to a winding up being “actively pursued” as a reason for a stay of enforcement.
Lee Sian Hee (trading as Lee Sian Hee Pork Trader) v Oh Kheng Soon ( trading as Ban Hon Trading Enterprise)High CourtYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 869SingaporeCited regarding the power to grant a stay stemming from s 45 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 and O 21 r 6(1) of the SICC Rules.
Ellis v ScottN/AYes1 WLR 976England and WalesCited in relation to the broadly equivalent English rules, that the power to otherwise direct a stay of enforcement pending an appeal was a separate head of power from the general power to grant a stay.
CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 148SingaporeCited as the principles applicable in a case in the SICC.
Strandore Invest A/S and others v Soh Kim WatHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 174SingaporeCited for summarising the approach to a stay of enforcement pending an appeal.
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053SingaporeCited for setting out the principles governing a stay of execution pending appeal.
EQ Capital Investments Ltd v The Wellness Group Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 154SingaporeCited regarding the sale of a holding company’s shares in its subsidiary by liquidators under distress sale conditions rendering a successful appeal nugatory.
NK Mulsan Co Ltd v INTL Asia Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 453SingaporeCited regarding the merits of the appeal not being material unless it can be easily gleaned that the appeal will be likely to fail or succeed.
Axis Megalink Sdn Bhd v Far East Mining Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHC 47SingaporeCited regarding the materiality of the merits of the appeal.
Viet Hai Petroleum Corp v Ng Jun QuanHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 887SingaporeCited regarding the judgment creditor being a foreign entity not of itself a special circumstance warranting a stay.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021
Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Stay of enforcement
  • Winding-up application
  • Special circumstances
  • Nugatory
  • Conditional stay
  • Judgment debt
  • Guarantee

15.2 Keywords

  • Stay of enforcement
  • Winding up
  • Appeal
  • Singapore International Commercial Court
  • Guarantee

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Insolvency Law
  • Commercial Litigation