Re Ishak Bin Ismail (Ex Parte United Overseas Bank Limited)

Re Ishak Bin Ismail (Ex Parte United Overseas Bank Limited)

Posting the statutory demand at the last known address was irregular and ineffective where the service agent had been told by an occupant that the debtor was not residing there and there was no evidence the debtor remained at that address; the affidavit failed to satisfy rule 108(3)(b) and (d); therefore the creditor did not comply with rule 96 and under rule108(6) the petition must be dismissed.

Citation
[2003] SGHC 131
Parties
Petitioner: United Overseas Bank Limited; Debtor: Ishak Bin Ismail
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
23 June 2003
Case Number
B 917/2003
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition (bankruptcy) / Appeal Against Dismissal of Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bankruptcy petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Substituted Service, Proof of Service, Bankruptcy Rules R96 and R108
Source Language
English
Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Service of Process Statutory Demand Substituted Service Proof of Service Bankruptcy Rules R96 and R108

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Overseas Bank Limited

Petitioner

Ishak Bin Ismail

Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition (bankruptcy) / Appeal Against Dismissal of Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demand was served in the prescribed manner under s62(a)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act
  2. 2 Whether substituted service by posting at the debtor's last known address was effective when an occupant stated the debtor was not residing there
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit of service complied with rule 108(3) requirements regarding explanation and specification of date for notice

Ratio Decidendi

Posting the statutory demand at the last known address was irregular and ineffective where the service agent had been told by an occupant that the debtor was not residing there and there was no evidence the debtor remained at that address; the affidavit failed to satisfy rule 108(3)(b) and (d); therefore the creditor did not comply with rule 96 and under rule108(6) the petition must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bankruptcy petition dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Bankruptcy petition dismissed