Judgment Header
Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228
Court DecisionSGHC
[2011] SGHC 228
[2011] SGHC 228
General Division of the High Court of Singapore14 Oct 2011Suit No 37 of 2009
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 14 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
14Later cases and laws citing this decision
“003) 45 ACSR 711 at [16]. It also bears mentioning that the ability to repay debts, presently due, at a future time does not demonstrate solvency: Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 at [79].”
“It is uncontroversial that the applicable principles are the same as those which govern an application to file a notice of appeal out of time (see BLQ v BLR [2011] SGHC 228 at [33]–[34]). The relevant factors are laid down in Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo [2011] 2 SLR 196 at [29]:”
“t to the question of insolvency: Chip Thye Enterprises Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Phay Gi Mo and others [2004] 1 SLR(R) 434 (“Chip Thye”) at [20]; Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 (“Kon Yin Tong”) at [30].”
“ay would be illogical as it would result in the balance sheet not balancing. I also note that a similar approach taken by Chee in an earlier case, Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 (“Kon Yin Tong”), was described as “an avant-garde and irregular method of accounting” and rejected by J”
“ly Co) v Lek Benedict and others [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263; Liquidator of Leong Seng Hin Piling Pte Ltd v Chan Ah Lek and others [2007] 2 SLR(R) 77; and Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228). It should be pointed out that civil liability under s 340(1) is separate and independent from criminal”
Show 9 moreShow fewer
“xamined in closer detail in order to understand their impact on the Plaintiff’s liquidity. As highlighted by Judith Prakash J (as she then was) in Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 (“Kon Yin Tong”), the Court should look at, amongst other things, (a) all of the company’s debts in orde”
“ould involve the application of one or more of several tests, depending on the circumstances of the case. As Judith Prakash J (as she then was) in Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 explained at [33], [36], [39] and [40]:”
“69m. In applying the balance sheet test under s 100(4)(b), the Bankrupt’s prospective liabilities must also be taken into account. As explained in Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 at [40], a prospective liability is a debt which will certainly become due in the future, either on some”
“The two main tests for insolvency are the cash flow test and the balance sheet test: Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 (“Kon Yin Tong”) at [33]. A company is insolvent if it is insolvent on either of these two tests.”
“s [2016] 3 SLR 621 (“Living the Link”) at [26] to [28]; Tam Chee Chong and another v DBS Bank Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 310 (“Tam Chee Chong”) at [62]; and Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 (“Kon Yin Tong”) at [33].”
“sidered contingent liabilities that would be properly considered for the purposes of the balance sheet test (see the decision of the High Court in Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 at [39]–[40]). In addition, we agree with OTPL that the shareholder’s loans were, in fact, regarded as d”
“proving that the likelihood of the contingent liability materialising was too remote. In particular, OP3 relies on Parakou (CA) at [46] as well as Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 (“Kon Yin Tong”). Mr Foo disputes OP3’s interpretation of the cases.”
“ng point is that the burden lay on the claimant to establish a ground for winding up, and not the other way around (see the High Court decision of Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 at [35]). Thus, if the claimant did not possess any of the defendant’s recent financial documents to pro”
“that is an issue to be determined when the claims in OC 194 come to be tried on the merits, for which the legal burden falls on the claimants (see Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others [2011] SGHC 228 at [49]). The question in SUM 1965 is simply whether there is any factual basis for the claimants’ claim”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 37 of 2009
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2011-10-14
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.