Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG

The statutory demand complied with r94(4)(a) because it supplied sufficient particulars and attachments (Registrar's certificates and orders) to identify the debts; a pending leave application did not render the demand defective nor justify setting it aside under r98(2)(e) absent evidence of real prejudice or possible set-off equal to the debt; the Registrar's certificates remained conclusive and the presumption of inability to pay was not rebutted at the statutory demand stage. Therefore the demand stands and the appeal fails.

Citation
[2006] SGHC 139
Parties
Applicant/debtor: Wee Soon Kim Anthony; Respondent/creditor: UBS AG
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
2 August 2006
Case Number
OS B57/2005, RA 348/2005
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Insolvency / Appeal From Assistant Registrar's Refusal to Set Aside Statutory Demand
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; statutory demand upheld
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy Rules R94(4)(a), Bankruptcy Rules R98(2)(d) and R98(2)(e), Registrar's Certificate as Conclusive Evidence, Presumption of Inability to Pay
Source Language
English
Insolvency Law Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Rules R94(4)(a) Bankruptcy Rules R98(2)(d) and R98(2)(e) Registrar's Certificate as Conclusive Evidence Presumption of Inability to Pay

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wee Soon Kim Anthony

Applicant/debtor

UBS AG

Respondent/creditor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Insolvency / Appeal From Assistant Registrar's Refusal to Set Aside Statutory Demand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demand complied with r 94(4)(a) of the Bankruptcy Rules
  2. 2 Whether omission to mention a pending leave to appeal application impeached the statutory demand
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under r 98(2)(e) to set aside the statutory demand

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory demand complied with r94(4)(a) because it supplied sufficient particulars and attachments (Registrar's certificates and orders) to identify the debts; a pending leave application did not render the demand defective nor justify setting it aside under r98(2)(e) absent evidence of real prejudice or possible set-off equal to the debt; the Registrar's certificates remained conclusive and the presumption of inability to pay was not rebutted at the statutory demand stage. Therefore the demand stands and the appeal fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; statutory demand upheld

Orders

  • Statutory demand allowed to stand
  • Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at S$2,000