Wong Joo Wan v Bravo Building Construction: Extension of Judicial Management Order and Statement of Proposals
Mr. Wong Joo Wan, the judicial manager of Bravo Building Construction Pte Ltd, applied to the High Court of Singapore for extensions related to the judicial management of Bravo. The application sought an extension to put forward a Statement of Proposals (SOP) and to extend the judicial management order. The court granted the extension for the SOP until 6 July 2024 but denied the other orders, finding it premature without a clear strategy for achieving the purposes of judicial management. The court emphasized the need to properly inform creditors and the importance of substantive reasons for extending a judicial management order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
The applicant is allowed 60 days from 7 May 2024 to put forward a Statement of Proposals. The other orders sought by the applicant are not allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial manager seeks extension for statement of proposals and judicial management of Bravo Building Construction. Extension for SOP granted, other orders denied.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Joo Wan | Applicant | Individual | Extension of time to put forward Statement of Proposals granted; other orders sought not allowed | Partial | |
| Bravo Building Construction Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Orders sought against respondent partially granted | Neutral | |
| Aik Chuan Investment Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | |||
| Supreme Hospitality Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | |||
| Lawrence Leow Chin Hin | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Bravo was placed under interim judicial management on 8 January 2024.
- Bravo was placed under judicial management with the applicant appointed as the judicial manager on 7 February 2024.
- Bravo's main assets are two properties located in Geylang.
- The Properties are mortgaged to Aik Chuan Investment Pte Ltd.
- Bravo issued an Option to Purchase to Supreme for the sale and purchase of the Properties.
- Supreme exercised the Option to Purchase.
- A potential white knight investor may support a scheme of arrangement to restructure Bravo’s liabilities by injecting $3.5m.
5. Formal Citations
- Wong Joo Wan (in his capacity as judicial manager of Bravo Building Construction Pte Ltd (under judicial management))vBravo Building Construction Pte Ltd (under judicial management), Originating Application No 410 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 127
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Bravo was placed under interim judicial management. | |
| Bravo was placed under judicial management with the applicant appointed as the judicial manager. | |
| Bravo issued an Option to Purchase to Supreme for the sale and purchase of the Properties. | |
| Supreme exercised the Option to Purchase. | |
| Solicitors for Supreme and Mr Lawrence Leow Chin Hin wrote to the applicant regarding the sale and purchase of the Properties. | |
| Solicitors for Supreme and Mr Leow demanded that Bravo and the applicant proceed with the completion under the Option to Purchase. | |
| Applicant received a letter from a potential white knight investor. | |
| Applicant filed an application seeking an extension of time to lay a copy of the Statement of Proposals before a meeting of the Company’s creditors. | |
| Applicant sent a circular to Bravo’s creditors informing them that he is unable to put forward the Statement of Proposals by 7 May 2024. | |
| Applicant sent a further circular to Bravo’s creditors seeking their input on this application by 9 May 2024, 10am. | |
| Deadline for applicant to put forward the Statement of Proposals. | |
| Date of hearing. | |
| Date of judgment. | |
| Original expiration date of judicial management order. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of time to put forward Statement of Proposals
- Outcome: The court allowed the applicant 60 days from 7 May 2024 to put forward a Statement of Proposals.
- Category: Procedural
- Extension of judicial management order
- Outcome: The court did not allow the extension of the judicial management order.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to put forward a Statement of Proposals
- Extension of the judicial management of Bravo
- Extension of the applicant’s appointment as the judicial manager of Bravo
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Insolvency
- Restructuring
- Corporate Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) TBK, Singapore Branch v Farooq Ahmad Mann (in his capacity as judicial manager) and another and other mattters | High Court | Yes | [2024] 3 SLR 1199 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 107 of the IRDA sets out the requirement for a judicial manager to put forward his Statement of Proposals within 90 days after a company is put under judicial management. |
| Re Bulb Energy Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [2021] EWHC 3680 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an extension to put forward a Statement of Proposals should be allowed where there is good reason. |
| Farooq Ahmad Mann (in his capacity as judicial manager) v Golden Mountain Textile and Trading Pte Ltd (in judicial management) | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 48 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judicial management order should only be extended if it would achieve one or more purposes of judicial management. |
| Re V McGeown Wholesale Wines and Spirits Ltd’s (in administration) Application | Unknown | Yes | [1997] NIJB 190 | Northern Ireland | Cited for the principle that strict timelines are laid down because judicial management interferes with the ordinary remedies and rights of creditors. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 107(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 111(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 107(1) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 108(1) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 108(5) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 89 | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 107(2) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 111 | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 107(4) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 111(6) | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 112(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial management
- Statement of Proposals
- Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018
- Option to Purchase
- White knight investor
- Scheme of arrangement
- Creditors
- Properties
- Judicial manager
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial management
- Statement of Proposals
- Extension of time
- Insolvency
- Bravo Building Construction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Insolvency Law | 95 |
| Judicial Management | 90 |
| Restructuring and Dissolution | 85 |
| Corporate Law | 40 |
| Judgments and Orders | 30 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Insolvency
- Restructuring
- Judicial Management
- Extension of Time