Eastern Pretech v Kin Lin Builders: Winding Up Order & Scheme of Arrangement

In the High Court of Singapore, Andrew Ang JC presided over the case of *Eastern Pretech Pte Ltd v Kin Lin Builders Pte Ltd* on 3 September 2004, concerning a winding up petition. The court initially ordered Kin Lin Builders to be wound up due to an undisputed debt. Kin Lin Builders sought to set aside the winding up order, intending to propose a scheme of arrangement. However, the court found that the scheme of arrangement was unlikely to succeed due to lack of creditor support and the company's insolvency. The court declined to set aside the winding up order and allowed Eastern Pretech Pte Ltd to be substituted as the petitioning creditor.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Winding up order not set aside; substitution of petitioning creditor allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court declined to set aside a winding up order against Kin Lin Builders, finding no prospect of a successful scheme of arrangement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Bintai Kindenko Pte LtdCreditorCorporationWinding up order not set asideNeutral
Eastern Pretech Pte LtdApplicant, Supporting CreditorCorporationSubstitution as petitioning creditor allowedWon
Kin Lin Builders Pte LtdRespondent, DebtorCorporationWinding up order not set asideLost
Ligent Engineering Pte LtdPetitioning CreditorCorporationWithdrawal allowedWithdrawn
Jong Huen ShinContributoryIndividualWinding up order not set asideLost
Chin Choon LongContributoryIndividualWinding up order not set asideLost
Rongde Metal ConstructionSupporting CreditorCorporationWinding up order not set asideNeutral
S and T Construction Pte LtdSupporting CreditorCorporationWinding up order not set asideNeutral
BlueScope Lysaght (S) Pte LtdSupporting CreditorCorporationWinding up order not set asideNeutral
Bored Piling (S) Pte LtdSupporting CreditorCorporationWinding up order not set asideNeutral
Deloitte and ToucheLiquidatorCorporationWinding up order not set asideNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJCYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Hwai BinWong Partnership
Ian de VazWong Partnership
Sim Chee SiongRajah and Tann
Edwin LeeRajah and Tann
Kirindeep SinghRajah and Tann
Troy YeoK K Yap and Partners
Ratanesh BalStraits Law Practice LLC
L DasonKhoo Ng and Partners
Chia Ho ChoonKhattar Wong and Partners
Martin F DecruzAng and Lee
Allister Lim Wee SingPK Wong and Associates LLC
Andrew AngPK Wong and Associates LLC

4. Facts

  1. Ligent Engineering Pte Ltd filed a winding up petition against Kin Lin Builders Pte Ltd for an unpaid debt of $18,000.
  2. Kin Lin Builders sought an adjournment to file a counterclaim, which was denied.
  3. The court initially ordered Kin Lin Builders to be wound up on 18 June 2004.
  4. Kin Lin Builders intended to apply for a judicial management order with a view to proposing a scheme of arrangement.
  5. Major creditors, including Eastern Pretech and Bintai Kindenko, did not support the proposed scheme of arrangement.
  6. Supporting creditors represented more than 25% of the company's total unsecured debts.
  7. The company admitted it was unable to meet its liabilities and faced numerous legal actions.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Eastern Pretech Pte Ltd v Kin Lin Builders Pte Ltd, , [2004] SGHC 195

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Statutory demand served on Kin Lin Builders Pte Ltd
Counsel for the Company acting since this date
Winding Up Petition hearing
Company ordered to be wound up
Jong Huen Shin's affidavit filed
Leave granted for two shareholders to appear
Stay order under s 279(1) of the Companies Act made
Jong Huen Shin's affidavit filed
Hearing adjourned
Jong Huen Shin filed an affidavit appending the scheme of arrangement papers
Jong Huen Shin's affidavit affirmed
Creditors informed the court that they would not support the proposed scheme of arrangement
Winding up order not set aside

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting aside a winding up order
    • Outcome: The court declined to set aside the winding up order.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prospects of a scheme of arrangement
      • Creditor support
      • Company's solvency
  2. Substitution of petitioning creditor
    • Outcome: The court allowed the substitution of the petitioning creditor.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Winding up order
  2. Setting aside of winding up order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Winding Up

10. Practice Areas

  • Insolvency
  • Corporate Restructuring
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) s 279(1)Singapore
Companies Act s 210Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Winding up petition
  • Scheme of arrangement
  • Judicial management order
  • Supporting creditors
  • Insolvency
  • Statutory demand
  • Petitioning creditor
  • Substitution of petitioning creditor

15.2 Keywords

  • winding up
  • scheme of arrangement
  • insolvency
  • companies act
  • creditors

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Winding Up95
Scheme of Arrangement80
Company Law70
Bankruptcy60
Contract Law30
Commercial Disputes25

16. Subjects

  • Insolvency
  • Corporate Law
  • Civil Procedure