SUN TRAVELS & TOURS PVT LTD v HILTON INTERNATIONAL MANAGE (MALDIVES) PVT LTD

SUN TRAVELS & TOURS PVT LTD v HILTON INTERNATIONAL MANAGE (MALDIVES) PVT LTD

The Court of Appeal held that O 48 r 1(1) authorises examination and questions about a judgment debtor's assets wherever situated for the purpose of information gathering, and that the possibility or actuality of enforcing the Singapore judgment in the foreign jurisdiction (the Maldives) is irrelevant to permitting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] SGCA 65
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd; Respondent / Plaintiff: Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
6 July 2020
Case Number
CA/CA 209/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Ex Tempore Judgment Dismissing Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Examination of Judgment Debtor (ejd), Order 48 R 1(1), Information Gathering Vs Enforcement, Comity, Cross Border Asset Tracing
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Arbitration Enforcement of Judgments Private International Law Examination of Judgment Debtor (ejd) Order 48 R 1(1) Information Gathering Vs Enforcement Comity +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd

Appellant / Defendant

Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal; Ex Tempore Judgment Dismissing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether O 48 r 1(1) permits EJD questions about assets situated abroad even if the judgment cannot currently be enforced in that foreign jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether Form 99 or prior authorities require that the judgment be enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction before questions about foreign assets may be permitted in EJD proceedings
  3. 3 Whether ordering answers about assets in a foreign jurisdiction where a local court has refused enforcement breaches comity

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that O 48 r 1(1) authorises examination and questions about a judgment debtor's assets wherever situated for the purpose of information gathering, and that the possibility or actuality of enforcing the Singapore judgment in the foreign jurisdiction (the Maldives) is irrelevant to permitting such questions; accordingly the High Court's allowance of questions about Maldivian assets was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Parties to be heard on costs