Mitsui E&S Power Systems Inc v Neptun International: Attachment of Debts Despite CAD Order
In Mitsui E&S Power Systems Inc v Neptun International Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by DBS Bank Ltd concerning the attachment of debts. Mitsui sought to attach monies in Neptun's account to satisfy a judgment debt. DBS objected due to a CAD order freezing the account. AR Victor Choy dismissed DBS's application, ruling that the monies remained attached, subject to conditions related to the CAD order and any disposal inquiry. The court found that the CAD order did not extinguish the debt, and therefore the debt was attachable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed; monies in the account remain attached, subject to conditions regarding the CAD order.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses whether a debt can be attached despite a Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) order freezing the account. The court ruled the debt could be attached.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mitsui E&S Power Systems Inc | Claimant | Corporation | Monies in account remain attached | Partial | Veronica Teo, Genesa Tan |
| Neptun International Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Monies in account remain attached | Lost | |
| Rian Bin Rahim | Defendant | Individual | Monies in account remain attached | Lost | |
| DBS Bank Ltd | Non-Party, Respondent | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | Priscilla Soh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Victor Choy | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Veronica Teo | Focus Law Asia LLC |
| Genesa Tan | Focus Law Asia LLC |
| Priscilla Soh | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Mitsui commenced a suit against Neptun on 6 January 2023.
- Neptun failed to file a Notice of Intention to Contest, resulting in a Judgment in Default on 27 April 2023.
- Mitsui applied for an enforcement order to attach monies in Neptun's DBS account.
- DBS received a CAD Order on 10 January 2023, directing them not to allow dealings with the monies in Neptun's account.
- DBS filed a notice of objection to the attachment on 26 July 2023.
- Mitsui accepted that DBS should not be required to make payment of the monies in the Account in the meantime.
- Mitsui's position was that the monies in the Account should not be released from attachment.
5. Formal Citations
- Mitsui E&S Power Systems Inc v Neptun International Pte Ltd and another, Originating Claim No 5 of 2023 (Summons No 2489 of 2023), [2024] SGHCR 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mitsui commenced a suit against Neptun. | |
| DBS received the CAD Order. | |
| Mitsui obtained a Judgment in Default against the Defendants. | |
| Enforcement Order was granted. | |
| Sheriff served DBS with a notice of attachment. | |
| DBS filed a notice of objection. | |
| Hearing of the Application. | |
| Hearing of the Application. | |
| Hearing of the Application. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Attachment of Debts
- Outcome: The court held that the monies in Neptun's account could be attached despite the CAD Order.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHCR 14
- [1883] 11 QBD 518
- [2020] SGHCR 6
- [2018] AC 690
- [2016] 4 SLR 1248
- [2023] SGMC 87
- [2004] 1 AC 260
- Effect of CAD Order on Debt Attachment
- Outcome: The court held that the CAD Order did not extinguish the debt owed by DBS to Neptun, and therefore the debt was attachable.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 4 SLR 1248
- Contingent Debt
- Outcome: The court held that the monies in Neptun’s Account are not merely hypothetical and that an obligation exists now and unlike the case of Vintage Bullion.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 4 SLR 1248
- [2020] SGHCR 6
8. Remedies Sought
- Attachment of Debts
- Release of Funds
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Judgment Debt
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Law
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Art Ask Agency SL v Person(s) Unknown | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHCR 14 | Singapore | Cited to explain that O 22 is merely a simplification of O 49 and seeks to explain what “due or accruing due” has come to mean as case law has developed. |
| Webb v Stenton | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1883] 11 QBD 518 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of a debt that is due immediately or at some future date. |
| O’Laughlin Industries Co Ltd v Tan Thiam Hock | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHCR 6 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a debt that is due immediately or at some future date. |
| Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Marketing Co of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq | House of Lords | Yes | [2018] AC 690 | United Kingdom | Cited as a test to determine if a debt is attachable is to consider whether the debt is actionable. |
| Vintage Bullion DMCC (in its own capacity and as representative of the customers of MF Global Singapore Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)) v Chay Fook Yuen (in his capacity as joint and several liquidator of MF Global Singapore Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1248 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of contingent debts and the legal impediments to a party's legal entitlement to a sum of money. |
| Chng Zhun Teck Jackson v Public Prosecutor | Magistrates’ Court | Yes | [2023] SGMC 87 | Singapore | DBS referred to this case for the proposition that the CAD Order prevents the attachment of debts. The court distinguished this case as it involved an application for the release of monies under the CPC and did not involve garnishee or attachment proceedings. |
| Société Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Cie Internationale de Navigation | House of Lords | Yes | [2004] 1 AC 260 | United Kingdom | Cited to support the distinction between the attachment and release stages of garnishee or attachment orders. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 O 22 r 10(5) |
| Rules of Court 2021 O 22 r 2(2)(c) |
| Rules of Court 2021 O 22 r 6(4)(e) |
| Rules of Court 2021 O 22 r 13 |
| Rules of Court 2021 O 3 r 1(e) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed) O 49 r 1 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) s 35(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) ss 35(7) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) ss 35(8) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Attachment of Debts
- CAD Order
- Enforcement Order
- Judgment Debt
- Contingent Debt
- Disposal Inquiry
- Sheriff
- Notice of Attachment
15.2 Keywords
- Attachment
- Debt
- CAD Order
- Singapore
- Civil Procedure
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Banking
- Debt Recovery
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Attachment of Debts
- Enforcement