Teo Song Kwang Richard v Seng Hup Electric Co (S) Pte Ltd

Teo Song Kwang Richard v Seng Hup Electric Co (S) Pte Ltd

Clause 11 created a four-day trigger which is a period of less than seven days; O 3 r 2(5) therefore applied and the Sunday falling within that period was excluded, so payment on Monday 5 February 2001 was within the four-day grace and clause 11 was not triggered; accordingly it was unjust to allow the statutory demand to have its statutory consequences and the demand was set aside.

Citation
[2001] SGHC 105
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Teo Song Kwang Richard; Respondent / Defendant: Seng Hup Electric Co (S) Pte Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
24 May 2001
Case Number
Originating Summons Bankruptcy 600022/2001,RA 600043/2001
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (bankruptcy) / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Order Dismissing Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand
Outcome
Appeal allowed; statutory demand set aside; costs awarded to appellant here and below
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Setting Aside Statutory Demand, Residual Discretion Under R 98(2)(e), Computation of Time Under O 3 R 2(5), Consent Judgment Interpretation, Bankruptcy Act S 62
Source Language
English
Insolvency Bankruptcy Contract Civil Procedure Time Computation Statutory Demand Setting Aside Statutory Demand Residual Discretion Under R 98(2)(e) +3 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teo Song Kwang Richard

Appellant / Plaintiff

Seng Hup Electric Co (S) Pte Ltd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (bankruptcy) / Appeal From Deputy Registrar's Order Dismissing Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its residual discretion under Bankruptcy Rules r 98(2)(e) to set aside a statutory demand
  2. 2 Whether the four-day grace in clause 11 of the consent judgment fell to be reckoned excluding a Sunday under O 3 r 2(5) so that payment on Monday was within the grace period
  3. 3 Whether clause 11 was triggered making the entire balance immediately due and payable when the sixth instalment was not paid by the end of 31 January 2001

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 11 created a four-day trigger which is a period of less than seven days; O 3 r 2(5) therefore applied and the Sunday falling within that period was excluded, so payment on Monday 5 February 2001 was within the four-day grace and clause 11 was not triggered; accordingly it was unjust to allow the statutory demand to have its statutory consequences and the demand was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; statutory demand set aside; costs awarded to appellant here and below

Orders

  • Statutory demand dated 16 February 2001 set aside
  • Appeal allowed