[2001] SGHC 17

“ld by the petitioning creditor to be stated. The underlying purpose of this disclosure requirement, as explained by the Singapore High Court in Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd [2001] SGHC 17 at [11], is to “make a creditor declare that he holds any asset of the debtor or any security in respect”

“ough; the court must examine the alleged counterclaim, set-off or cross demand to see if the debtor has a bona fide claim against the creditor (Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd [2001] SGHC 17 (“Goh Chin Soon”) at [7]).”

“In Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited [2001] SGHC 17, Lee Seiu Kin JC (as he then was) observed at [7] that:”

“d Zain bin Abdullah v Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal [2014] 2 SLR 446 (“Chimbusco”) at [16]–[17]; Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited [2001] SGHC 17 at [7]. As the Court of Appeal explained in Chimbusco (at [17]), citing Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y”

“there was simply no use in requiring a creditor to specify property that he was not entitled to apply towards payment of the debt (see also Goh Chin Soon v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited [2001] SGHC 17 (“Goh Chin Soon”) at [11]). In effect, the property of a debtor that has to be disclosed under r 94(5) wo”