Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak: Recognition of Foreign Bankruptcy Orders & Natural Justice

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Paulus Tannos, Lina Rawung, Pauline Tannos, and Catherine Tannos against a High Court decision to recognize Indonesian bankruptcy orders obtained by Heince Tombak Simanjuntak, Hardiansyah, William E. Daniel, Anita Saridewi, and Maria Margaretha Jusuf, who were appointed as receivers and administrators of the appellants' estate in Indonesia. The appellants argued that the Indonesian bankruptcy orders were obtained in breach of natural justice due to lack of notice of the PKPU proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the appellants were not properly served with the PKPU application and did not have a fair opportunity to be heard.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses recognition of Indonesian bankruptcy orders, focusing on breach of natural justice due to lack of notice.

1.7 Decision Date

26 August 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Paulus Tannos	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Lau Wen Jin of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Philip Antony Jeyaretnam of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Heince Tombak Simanjuntak	Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Chang Man Phing Jenny of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lee Pei Hua Rachel of WongPartnership LLP Poon Chun Wai (Pan Junwei) of WongPartnership LLP
Hardiansyah	Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Chang Man Phing Jenny of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lee Pei Hua Rachel of WongPartnership LLP Poon Chun Wai (Pan Junwei) of WongPartnership LLP
William E. Daniel	Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Chang Man Phing Jenny of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lee Pei Hua Rachel of WongPartnership LLP Poon Chun Wai (Pan Junwei) of WongPartnership LLP
Anita Saridewi	Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Chang Man Phing Jenny of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lee Pei Hua Rachel of WongPartnership LLP Poon Chun Wai (Pan Junwei) of WongPartnership LLP
Maria Margaretha Jusuf	Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Chang Man Phing Jenny of WongPartnership LLP Ho Pei Shien Melanie of WongPartnership LLP Lee Pei Hua Rachel of WongPartnership LLP Poon Chun Wai (Pan Junwei) of WongPartnership LLP
Lina Rawung	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Lau Wen Jin of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Philip Antony Jeyaretnam of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Pauline Tannos	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Lau Wen Jin of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Philip Antony Jeyaretnam of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Catherine Tannos	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Lau Wen Jin of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Philip Antony Jeyaretnam of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge of Appeal	No
Woo Bih Li	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lau Wen Jin	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Philip Antony Jeyaretnam	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Chang Man Phing Jenny	WongPartnership LLP
Ho Pei Shien Melanie	WongPartnership LLP
Lee Pei Hua Rachel	WongPartnership LLP
Poon Chun Wai (Pan Junwei)	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

Appellants were declared bankrupt by the Commercial Court of the Central Jakarta District Court in February 2017.
Respondents were appointed as receivers and administrators of the appellants’ estate by the Indonesian court.
Respondents commenced proceedings in Singapore High Court for recognition of the Indonesian bankruptcy orders.
Appellants applied to set aside the ex parte order granted by the High Court judge.
The loan to PT Megalestari Unggul (MLU) was guaranteed by the appellants.
MLU was unable to repay the loan to BAG when it fell due on 26 October 2012.
PT Senja commenced PKPU proceedings against MLU and the appellants, as guarantors.
Notices of the PKPU application were not properly served on the appellants.

5. Formal Citations

Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak and others and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 69 of 2019 and 70 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 85

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-10-26	Facility agreement signed between PT Bank Artha Graha Internasional Tbk and PT Megalestari Unggul.
2011-12-20	Facility agreement amended.
2012-10-26	Loan to PT Megalestari Unggul fell due.
2016-12-02	Accounts receivables assigned to PT Senja Imaji Prisma.
2016-12-08	PT Senja commenced PKPU proceedings against MLU and the appellants.
2016-12-20	PT Senja attempted to serve notice of PKPU proceedings on the appellants.
2017-01-09	Commercial Court of the Central Jakarta District Court granted the PKPU application.
2017-01-20	First creditors’ meeting.
2017-02-10	Second creditors’ meeting.
2017-02-17	Third creditors’ meeting.
2017-02-22	Indonesian court pronounced MLU insolvent and the appellants bankrupt.
2017-04-17	Third respondent added as a Receiver.
2017-12-28	Receivers filed Originating Summons No 1468 of 2017 in the Singapore High Court to recognise the bankruptcy orders.
2018-01-11	Court granted ex parte recognition of the Indonesian Bankruptcy Orders against MLU.
2018-01-12	Receivers filed the ex parte application against the appellants in Originating Summons No 71 of 2018.
2018-02-21	Appellants filed Summons No 903 of 2018 to set aside recognition of the Indonesian Bankruptcy Orders against them.
2019-01-01	Civil Appeal No 69 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No 70 of 2019 filed.
2020-06-17	Judgment reserved.
2020-08-27	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the appellants were not properly served with the PKPU application and did not have a fair opportunity to be heard, constituting a breach of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Insufficient notice of PKPU proceedings
  - Lack of opportunity to be heard
Recognition of Foreign Judgments
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal considered the requirements for recognition of foreign judgments, including whether the foreign court had competent jurisdiction and whether the orders were final and conclusive.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Finality and conclusiveness of foreign orders
  - Competent jurisdiction of foreign court

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of recognition orders

9. Cause of Actions

Recognition of Foreign Bankruptcy Orders

10. Practice Areas

Cross-Border Insolvency
Bankruptcy Law
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re Opti-Medix Ltd (in liquidation) and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 312	Singapore	Endorsed the common law requirements for recognition of foreign judgments.
Re Taisoo Suk (as foreign representative of Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd)	High Court	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 787	Singapore	Endorsed the common law requirements for recognition of foreign judgments.
Re Gulf Pacific Shipping Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] SGHC 287	Singapore	Endorsed the common law requirements for recognition of foreign judgments.
Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 545	Singapore	Laid down the requirements for common law recognition of foreign judgments.
Heince Tombak Simanjuntak and others v Paulus Tannos and others	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 216	Singapore	The Judge's decision below, which was appealed in the present case.
Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 1322	Singapore	Endorsed the requirements laid down in Giant Light Metal for recognition of foreign judgments.
The Vasiliy Golovnin	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994	Singapore	Cited for the duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications.
Jacobson v Frachon	Court of Appeal	Yes	138 LT 386	England	Cited for the principles of natural justice in recognition and enforcement proceedings.
Adams and others v Cape Industries Plc and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 Ch 433	England	Cited for the principles of natural justice in recognition and enforcement proceedings.
Bhagwan Singh v Chand Singh	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1968–1970] SLR(R) 50	Singapore	Cited for the validity of service of process by registered mail.
Jet Holdings Inc and others v Patel	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 QB 335	England	Cited for the principle that the recognition court is not bound by the foreign court's views on natural justice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation for Payment of Debts	Indonesia
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

PKPU
Bankruptcy Orders
Recognition
Natural Justice
Service of Process
Material Non-Disclosure
Foreign Judgments
Insolvency
Receivers
Guarantees

15.2 Keywords

bankruptcy
recognition
foreign judgment
natural justice
Singapore
Indonesia
PKPU

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Recognition of Foreign Judgments	95
Natural justice	90
Bankruptcy	85
Insolvency Law	80
Foreign Law	80
Private International Law	75
Winding Up	70
International Law	70
Civil Procedure	40
Administrative Law	30
Contract Law	20
Contracts	20
Arbitration	20
International Arbitration	20
Commercial Law	20
Breach of Contract	20
Constitutional Law	15
Estoppel	15

16. Subjects

Conflict of Laws
Insolvency Law
Civil Procedure