Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group: Bankruptcy & Statutory Demands
Jannie Chan Siew Lee appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss her application to set aside a statutory demand issued by Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a statutory demand is not procedurally defective for failing to specify security provided by a third party (the principal debtor, Timor Global LDA), as the requirement to specify security only applies to security provided by the debtor against whom bankruptcy proceedings are being taken. The court ordered the appellant to pay costs of $20,000 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on whether a statutory demand must specify third-party security. The court held it only applies to security provided by the debtor.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Jannie Chan Siew Lee | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Respondent extended banking facilities to Timor Global LDA, secured by a pledge from TG and a personal guarantee from the Appellant.
- TG defaulted on repayment of the facilities.
- The Respondent commenced a suit against the directors, including the Appellant, and obtained summary judgment.
- The Respondent served a statutory demand on the Appellant, disclosing a mortgage over a property co-owned by the Appellant but not the pledge provided by TG.
- The Appellant applied to set aside the statutory demand, arguing it was defective for not specifying the pledge.
- The High Court dismissed the application.
5. Formal Citations
- Chan Siew Lee Jannie v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Civil Appeal No 32 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent extended banking facilities to Timor Global LDA in the sum of $7.8m. | |
| Appellant entered into a personal guarantee to pay sums owed by Timor Global LDA to the Respondent. | |
| Respondent commenced a suit against the directors of Timor Global LDA. | |
| Summary judgment was granted against the directors for US$5.8m, plus interest and costs. | |
| Statutory Demand dated | |
| Respondent served a statutory demand on the Appellant for a sum of $6.5m. | |
| Appellant commenced application to set aside the statutory demand. | |
| Court hearing. | |
| Grounds of decision delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether third party security has to be specified in a statutory demand
- Outcome: The court held that the expression “security” in rr 94(5) and 98(2)(c) of the Rules can only refer to security which is provided by the debtor against whom bankruptcy proceedings are being taken.
- Category: Substantive
- Extension of time to apply to set aside statutory demand
- Outcome: The court found that the reason given for the delay was unsatisfactory. The court agreed substantially both with the reasoning and the analysis of the Judge on this issue.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Statutory Demand
- Extension of Time
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guarantee
- Debt Recovery
10. Practice Areas
- Bankruptcy Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jannie Chan Siew Lee v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 157 | Singapore | The High Court decision which was appealed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court's decision that the statutory demand was not defective. |
| Re Loh Lee Keow and another, ex parte Keppel TatLee Bank Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 283 | Singapore | Cited as authority that the only security which has to be specified in a statutory demand was that which was held over the property of the debtor. |
| Sia Leng Yuen v HKR Properties Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 587 | Singapore | Cited as authority that the only security which has to be specified in a statutory demand was that which was held over the property of the debtor. |
| White v Davenham | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 BCLC 123 | England | Cited for the principle that bankruptcy proceedings are not intended as a means for a single creditor to enforce his debt but is instead a method for the collective realisation of the assets of the debtor. |
| Re Toronto Wood & Shingle Co | Unknown | Yes | (1894) 30 Can LT 353 | Canada | Cited for the object of the bankruptcy process is to bring within the control of the court all the estate of the bankrupt in order that it can be distributed in a simple, inexpensive, and expeditious manner for the benefit of all creditors |
| In re Turner, ex parte West Riding Union Banking Company | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1881) 19 Ch D 105 | England | Cited for the principle that a person is not allowed to prove against a bankrupt’s estate and yet retain a security which, if given up, would go to augment the estate against which he proves. |
| In the Matter of John Plummer and William Wilson, Bankrupts | Unknown | Yes | [1841] 1 Ph. 56 | England | Cited for the proposition that the existence of third party security does not affect the right of a creditor to be admitted to the bankruptcy process and to prove the full amount of his debt. |
| Steamship Enterprises of Panama Inc., Liverpool (Owners) v Ousel (Owners) and others (The Liverpool (No. 2) | Unknown | Yes | [1960] 2 WLR 541 | England | Cited for the proposition that the existence of third party security does not affect the right of a creditor to be admitted to the bankruptcy process and to prove the full amount of his debt. |
| Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd v Samuel Pakianathan | Malaysian Supreme Court | Yes | [1993] 2 MLJ 423 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of a secured creditor. |
| Re A Debtor (No 310 of 1988) | English High Court | Yes | [1989] 1 WLR 452 | England | Cited for the conclusion that the expression “security” in the equivalent provisions in the Insolvency Act 1986 (c 45) (UK) and the Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) (UK) only refers to security which is provided by the debtor against whom bankruptcy proceedings are being taken. |
| Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1071 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a creditor with several remedies at his disposal can choose whether to enforce and, if so, which one to enforce, at what time, in which order, and in whatever way, subject only to the rule that he cannot recover more than is due to him. |
| Ewart v Latta | House of Lords | Yes | (1865) 4 Macq 983 (HL) | England | Cited for the principle that a surety has no right as such to require the creditor to proceed against the principal (or any of the co-sureties), or against any security provided for the debt guaranteed before proceeding against himself. |
| Re Yohan Chandra, ex p United Overseas Bank Ltd | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2001] 2 HKC 568 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that it is not the law that a creditor can be compelled to proceed against a solvent principal debtor or a solvent co-surety before he is allowed to place the whole burden of the debt upon a particular surety. |
| Re Yohan Chandra, ex p United Overseas Bank Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 HKC 64 | Hong Kong | Cited for affirming the principle that it is not the law that a creditor can be compelled to proceed against a solvent principal debtor or a solvent co-surety before he is allowed to place the whole burden of the debt upon a particular surety. |
| Caisse populaire Desjardins Saint-Jean Baptiste de Lasalle v 164375 Canada inc. | Court of Appeal of Quebec | Yes | 1999 CanLII 13771 (QC CA) | Canada | Cited for the principle that third party guarantees did not in any way preclude the Caisse from proceeding against its principal debtor, whether by way of bankruptcy petition or otherwise. |
| Mastronardi (In Bankruptcy) (Re) | Court of Appeal for Ontario | Yes | 2000 CanLII 17002 (ON CA) | Canada | Cited for the principle that if the petitioner can satisfy the requirements of the [Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act], there is no reason for denying him access to the process and remedies of the Act because there may be other civil routes open to him. |
| Re Ho Kok Cheong, ex parte Banque Paribas | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 98 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to deny the appellant its full rights of recovery against the bankrupt would be unjust. |
| Remblance v Octagon Assets Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 All ER 688 | England | Cited by the appellant in support of their argument. The court distinguished this case. |
| Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1972] 2 WLR 1175 | England | Cited for the principle that the debtor’s liability to the creditor is also the measure of the guarantor's. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| UK Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 No 1925) r 6.5(4)(a) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) rr 94(5) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R 1, 2006 Rev Ed) rr 98(2) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) s 90 | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act s 76(3) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act ss 63(1) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act ss 63(2) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act s 2 | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act ss 61(c) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act ss 62(a) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 21 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Statutory Demand
- Bankruptcy
- Third Party Security
- Personal Guarantee
- Debtor's Security
- Secured Creditor
- Co-extensiveness
15.2 Keywords
- Bankruptcy
- Statutory Demand
- Security
- Guarantee
- Insolvency
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Insolvency Law | 80 |
| Bankruptcy | 75 |
| Statutory Demand | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Extension of Validity | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Bankruptcy Law
- Civil Procedure
- Guarantees