Skip to content
laws.sgby aturio
Grounds publishedDecided 2 Aug 2006
Contents

High Court

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG

Feedback & support

[2006] SGHC 139Case no. OS B57/2005, RA 348/20052 paragraphs

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

  1. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J:

  2. [7] It is convenient to set out in full the various provisions of the Bankruptcy Rules relied upon by Wee. Rule 94(4)(a) states:

  3. Rule 98(2) reads:

  4. I should mention that Wee at the appeal apparently abandoned an earlier argument based on r 98(2)(b).

  5. [13] Wee argued below that the statutory demand issued under s 62 of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed) raises the presumption that a debtor is unable to pay his debts. Wee claimed that he has rebutted the statutory presumption with evidence that he could issue a cheque for the sum of $1m to demonstrate his ability to pay his debts. This contention did not find favour with me. It is not the function of the court – in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to set aside a statutory demand – to conduct an investigation into the debtor’s overall financial position. That is a matter for the court on the hearing of the bankruptcy petition if the statutory demand is allowed to stand.

  6. Appendix A