chimbusco international petroleum (singapore

8/12/2019 Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore

1/26

1


2/26

2

Singapore Law Reports/2013/Volume 2/Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore Pte Lt! "#alallu!in bin $b!ullah an! other matters%2013& S'C )) * %2013& 2 SLR +01 * 2+ ,ebruar- 2013

2. pages

%2013& 2 SLR +01

Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jalalludin binAbdullah and other matters

[20!" S#$C %%

$igh Court&inodh Coomaras'am JCan*ruptc +riginating Summons ,o -%2 o. 202 (/egistrars Appeals ,os 21! and 23 o.202)4 an*ruptc +riginating Summons ,o 5%5 o. 202 (/egistrars Appeals ,os 213 and

2! o. 202)4 an*ruptc +riginating Summons ,o 51 o. 202 (/egistrars Appeals ,os21% and 2% o. 202)4 Companies 6inding 7p +riginating Summons ,o 5 o. 2024Companies 6inding 7p +riginating Summons ,o 50 o. 202 and Companies 6inding 7p+riginating Summons ,o 5 o. 202!4 2!4 23 August 2028 4 204 2 September 20284 2 9ebruar 20!

Insolvency Law -- Bankruptcy -- Bankruptcy order -- Whether court had power or obligation toorder (with or without conditions) stay of bankruptcy proceedings pending resolution of disputeover underlying debt

Insolvency Law -- Winding up -- Winding-up order -- Whether court could order defendant toprovide security for full amount of debt as condition of stay of insolvency proceedings wheredefence was shadowy

Insolvency Law -- Winding up -- Winding-up order -- Whether plaintiff bore legal burden of provingthat there are no triable issues

Insolvency Law -- Winding up -- Winding-up order -- Whether standard to determine if insolvencyproceedings should continue (where underlying debt is disputed) same as standard applied inapplication for summary judgment

9acts

he !een!ants ointl- an! se"erall- guarantee! a !ebt owe! b- 'as ra!e (S Pte Lt! ('asra!e to the plainti Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore Pte Lt! (Chimbusco4'as ra!e !eaulte! in pa-ment o the !ebt4 Chimbusco !i! not commence a ci"il action against

the guarantors4 Instea! it instea! ser"e! statutor- !eman!s on them4 he guarantors aile! tosatis- Chimbusco5s statutor- !eman!s4 Chimbusco thereore commence! insol"enc-procee!ings against them4 he guarantors together with 'as ra!e then commence! Suit 6o378 o 2012 to !ispute their liabilit- to Chimbusco4 he ban9ruptc- applications against threepersonal guarantors were hear! b- the $ssistant Registrar ($R on 3 #ul- 20124 She or!ere! acon!itional sta- o these ban9ruptc- applications pen!ing the resolution o Suit 378/20124Chimbusco an! the three personal guarantors then appeale! against the $R5s !ecision to a u!gein chambers4 he u!ge hear! the ban9ruptc- appeals together with Chimbusco5s win!ing*upapplications against three corporate guarantors4 he u!ge sta-e! the ban9ruptc- procee!ingsan! the win!ing*up procee!ings on con!ition that the guarantors pro"i!e securit- to Chimbusco


3/26

3

or the ull!"# $L% &!" at &!

amount o the !ebt claime! against them within three wee9s o his or!er4 owe"er theguarantors aile! to pro"i!e an- securit- b- the !ea!line4 Chimbusco thereore sought ban9ruptc-

or!ers an! win!ing*up or!ers against the guarantors4

$eld4 dismissing the personal guarantors appeals and ma*ing the ban*ruptc orders and'inding up orders:

1) :here the !ebt which orms the basis o insol"enc- procee!ings has not beena!u!icate! b- a ci"il court an! is !ispute! the applicable stan!ar! or !eterminingwhether the cre!itor shoul! be permitte! to continue the procee!ings is the same asthe stan!ar! applie! in summar- u!gment procee!ings un!er ; 17 o the Rules oCourt (Cap 322 R ) 200< Re" =!4 hat is the cre!itor ma- continue theinsol"enc- procee!ings where the insol"enc- court is satisie! that there are notriable issues> at %70& an! %71&4

1) he plainti bears the legal bur!en o pro"ing that there are no triable issues4 he!een!ant5s onl- bur!en is an e"i!ential one4 he concept o triable issues is well*establishe! in the law relating to summar- u!gment an! it is thereore unhelpul toa!opt terminolog- rom the criminal law to rame the plainti5s bur!en as one oestablishing the absence o triable issues be-on! a reasonable !oubt> at %73& to%7)&4

1) he court retains a resi!ual !iscretion to !ismiss insol"enc- procee!ings e"en i it issatisie! that there are no triable issues> at %7 at %)3& to %))& an! %).&4

1) he guarantors5 !eences as to their liabilit- were all base! on oral agreements4 he@uestions o whether these oral agreements were reache! an! whetherChimbusco5s emplo-ee ha! an- authorit- to ma9e certain oral representations weretriable issues4 hereore Chimbusco coul! not be grante! the uncon!itionalinsol"enc- or!ers which it sought> at %


4/26

7

sta- the insol"enc- procee!ings was thereore the ull amount claime! against themun!er the guarantees> at %++& to %.2&4

1) ;n the acts no sta- o the insol"enc- procee!ings or sta- o eAecution o theinsol"enc- or!ers woul! be grante! pen!ing appeal against these or!ers4 he

guarantors ha! been gi"en the opportunit- to pro"i!e securit- as a con!ition oobtaining a sta- o the procee!ings but aile! to !o so4 he- shoul! not ha"e thebeneit o a sta- without satis-ing the con!ition4 here was no e"i!ence that theguarantors aile! to satis- the con!ition !ue to their inancial position or or reasonsbe-on! their control4 ;r!er )< r 1(7 o the Rules o Court an! r 72(b o the?an9ruptc- Rules ma9e clear that an appeal !oes not operate as a sta- oinsol"enc- procee!ings or a sta- o eAecution o insol"enc- or!ers4 here was alsono e"i!ence that the guarantors woul! suer irretrie"able preu!ice or !amage i theinsol"enc- or!ers were not sta-e! pen!ing appeal> at %.7& to %.)& an! %.8&4

Case(s) re.erred to

B* *hewing +um Ltd, %e%1.8)& 1 :LR )8. (re!

bdul $alam sanaru illai v .omanbhoy $ons te Ltd%2008& 2 SLR(R +)


5/26

)

Rules o Court (Cap 322 R ) 200< Re" =! ; ) three in!i"i!uals an! se"en companies4 ?ut Chimbusco !i! not see9 to obtain a

u!gment either that 'as ra!e was liable to Chimbusco or this !ebt as principal !ebtor or thatan- o the ten guarantors was liable to Chimbusco or this !ebt un!er their guarantees4

[3" ;n 3 $pril 2012 Chimbusco commence! win!ing*up procee!ings against two o the tenguarantors4 ;n 7 $pril 2012 it commence! ban9ruptc- procee!ings against one guarantor4 ;n 1commence! ban9ruptc- procee!ings against two more guarantors4 $n! on 31 Ga- 2012 itcommence! win!ing*up procee!ings against the inal three guarantors as well as against theprincipal !ebtor 'as ra!e4

[%" ;n 1 #une 2012 Philip Pillai # or!ere! that our o the corporate guarantors be woun! up4

he- were woun! up not because Pillai # oun! that the- owe! mone- to Chimbusco4 he- werewoun! up because the- a!mitte! that the- were insol"ent4 ;n < #ul- 2012 Lai Siu Chiu # or!ere!that 'as ra!e the principal !ebtor be woun! up4

[1" he siA remaining insol"enc- procee!ings came beore me4 hree o them came beore meon appeal rom an assistant registrar eAercising ban9ruptc- uris!iction4 he other three camebeore me at irst instance as win!ing*up procee!ings against the three remaining corporateguarantors4 he guarantors in"ite! me to !ismiss all siA o these insol"enc- procee!ings4Chimbusco in"ite! me to ma9e siA insol"enc- or!ers4 I !i! not !o either4 Instea! I sta-e! all siAprocee!ings on con!ition4 he con!ition was that the guarantors pro"i!e securit- to Chimbusco


6/26

each personal guarantor was to urnish securit- o SE1m to Chimbuscowithin three wee9s4 I the- !i! not the sta- woul! lapse4 he court coul! an! woul! then ma9eban9ruptc- or!ers against the personal guarantors4

!"# $L% &!" at &!&

All parties appeal

[22"$ll parties appeale! against the $R5s !ecision4 Chimbusco appeale! b- wa- o Registrar5s$ppeals (R$ 2+3 2+7 an! 2+) o 20124 Chimbusco argue! that the $R was wrong to ha"eaccepte! that there were triable issues an! conten!e! that the $R shoul! ha"e ma!e the


8/26

+

ban9ruptc- or!ers outright4 he personal guarantors appeale! b- wa- o R$ 6os 2 Para!igm Shipping ir uatan! Peta Garine4 $ter hearing the parties5 submissions I !ismisse! the personal guarantors5three appeals with costs4 I allowe! Chimbusco5s three appeals in part4 I or!ere! as ollows>

3a) he personal guarantors woul! ha"e a sta- o the ban9ruptc- applications pen!ingthe outcome o S378 i the- pro"i!e! securit- in the ull amount * SE7202)82412 *that was !eman!e! rom them in the statutor- !eman!s ser"e! on them4

3b) he personal guarantors were to pro"i!e that securit- ointl-4

3c) he- were to urnish the securit- within three wee9s4

[23" G- or!er in eect ga"e the personal guarantors rom 3 #ul- 2012 up to 17 September 2012to come up with the securit- albeit now in the sum o SE742m instea! o SE3m as ha! beenor!ere! b- the $R4

[2%" I ma!e substantiall- the same or!er in the three win!ing*up applications against the threecorporate guarantors4 he corporate guarantors woul! ha"e a sta- o the win!ing*up applicationspen!ing the outcome o S378 i the- pro"i!e! securit- or the ull amount which Chimbuscoclaime! against them as at the !ate o the win!ing*up applications * SE1301)372403 * within21 !a-s4 o ensure that Chimbusco was not o"ersecure! I permitte! the corporate guarantors to!e!uct rom their securit- an- securit- which the personal guarantors ma- pro"i!e4

Guarantors fail to proide security

[21" 6one o the guarantors pro"i!e! an- securit-4

[2-" ;n 1+ September 2012 the parties appeare! beore me again on the guarantors5 applicationor urther arguments4 I hear! the urther arguments4 I airme! m- earlier !ecision4 Counsel or

Chimbusco in"ite! me to ma9e the ban9ruptc- an! win!ing*up or!ers4 here was nothing to stopme rom !oing so4 he guarantors ha! aile! to pro"i!e securit- within the time I ha! stipulate!4he ;icial Recei"er conirme! that the papers were in or!er4 ?ut counsel or the guarantorsin!icate! that he ha!

!"# $L% &!" at &!Ainstructions to appeal to the Court o $ppeal against m- !ecision o 27 $ugust 2012 an! to see9rom me a sta- pen!ing appeal in respect o our o the siA guarantors beore me4 he- were Gr#alallu!in Gr ain Para!igm Shipping an! ir uat4 I iAe! that sta- application to be hear! on20 September 20124

[2" Counsel or the guarantors urther in!icate! that he ha! no instructions to appeal in respecto Gr Gohamma! an! Peta Garine or to see9 a sta- o the insol"enc- procee!ings against them4I thereore a!u!icate! Gr Gohamma! ban*ruptin ? 8)2 o 2012 an! or!ere! that Peta Garinebe woun! up in C: .1 o 20124

[25" ;n 1. September 2012 I hear! arguments on the remaining our guarantors5 application ora sta- pen!ing appeal4 I !ecline! the sta-4 Counsel or the guarantors then in!icate! that he ha!instructions to renew his application or a sta- beore the Court o $ppeal on an urgent basis4 Ithereore a!ourne! the our remaining insol"enc- procee!ings briel- to permit him to ma9e thatapplication4

[!0" ;n the morning o 21 September 2012 Lai Siu Chiu # eAercising the powers o the Court o$ppeal in an interlocutor- matter !ismisse! the our guarantors5 renewe! applications or a sta-pen!ing appeal4 In the aternoon o 21 September 2012 the matters came bac9 beore me4 here


9/26

.

being no sta- I or!ere! that ir uat be woun! up in C: .0 o 2012 I a!u!icate! Gr ainban*ruptin ? .


10/26

10

that or!erl- process4 :here a part- initiates insol"enc- procee!ings there are onl- two @uestionso act or the insol"enc- court> (a !oes the initiating part- ha"e the stan!ing re@uire! b- theinsol"enc- procee!ings it in"o9esB an! (b is the respon!ing part- insol"ent4 I the answer to both@uestions is -es the court will almost in"ariabl- ma9e an insol"enc- or!er4 I it !oes the

insol"ent5s assets will be eAternall- a!ministere! or the !"# $L% &!" at &""collecti"e beneit o all o its cre!itors ta9en as a whole an! not or an- particular cre!itor5sbeneit4

[!-" o put it briel->

5a) Ci"il procee!ings !etermine pri"ate rights or pri"ate beneit4 Insol"enc-procee!ings alter status or collecti"e beneit4 I the court ma9es an insol"enc- or!eragainst a !ebtor it ceases as against the worl! to be an autonomous economicentit-4 $n! i the insol"ent is a compan- it will e"entuall- cease to eAist e"en as alegal entit-4

5b) In ci"il procee!ings to reco"er mone- !etermining whether the !een!ant in!ee!

owes mone- to the plainti is the ultimate substanti"e obecti"e o the procee!ings4hat @uestion also arises when a ci"il court has to consi!er whether to abri!ge theor!inar- ci"il process b- which the court achie"es that substanti"e obect4 Ininsol"enc- procee!ings that issue is a un!amental threshol! issue which!etermines stan!ing4

[!" :here a cre!itor commences insol"enc- procee!ings ater ha"ing ha! its rights a!u!icate!in a ci"il suit its stan!ing to bring insol"enc- procee!ings is irreutabl- establishe!> the !ebtor isestoppe! rom !isputing the !ebt on which the cre!itor relies or his stan!ing4 ?ut where aputati"e cre!itor commences insol"enc- procee!ings without ha"ing ha! its rights a!u!icate! ina ci"il suit the putati"e !ebtor remains able to !ispute the threshol! issue o whether there is inact a !ebt4 $n! in insol"enc- procee!ings there is or all practical purposes onl- an abri!ge!proce!ure * on ai!a"its alone * to !etermine this threshol! issue4

[!5" In this situation it is right that the insol"enc- court shoul! not automaticallyreer the parties

to the ci"il court without e"aluating the merits o the !ispute beore it4 I on e"aluating the samee"i!ence the ci"il court woul! in! it appropriate to !etermine the parties5 rights b- the summar-

u!gment proce!ure it woul! be a waste o time an! mone- to reer the parties to the ci"il court4he insol"enc- court is in ust as goo! a position as the ci"il court to !etermine whether theputati"e !ebtor is in!ee! a !ebtor e"en though the @uestion is pose! in a !ierent conteAt an!or a !ierent purpose4 $n! in corporate insol"enc- thought not in personal insol"enc- where acompan- raises !isputes which woul! in a ci"il court result in a summar- u!gment or theplainti !ismissing the insol"enc- procee!ings preu!ices the compan-5s general bo!- ocre!itors in at least one ob"ious wa-4 It sets at large the commencement o the relation bac9perio! !uring which a li@ui!ator can re"erse "ulnerable pre*insol"enc- transactions or thecollecti"e beneit o all cre!itors4

[30" So the applicable stan!ar! or !etermining whether corporate insol"enc- procee!ings shoul!

continue in the absence o an a!u!ication o the initiating part-5s rights is rightl- whether theplainti can show that!"# $L% &!" at &"

there are no triable issues ust as in summar- u!gment procee!ings un!er ; 17 o the Rules oCourt (Cap 322 R ) 200< Re" =!4

[3" he position is i!entical when it comes to personal insol"enc-4 In ban9ruptc- procee!ings r128(b o the ?an9ruptc- Rules pro"i!es that the court shall !ismiss a cre!itor5s ban9ruptc-application where the statutor- !eman! upon which the application is base! is such that the courtwoul! ha"e set it asi!e ha! the !ebtor ma!e an application un!er r .8(1 o the ?an9ruptc-


11/26

11

Rules4 In or!er to set asi!e a statutor- !eman! un!er r .8(1 a !ebtor nee! onl- show that the!ebt is !ispute! on groun!s which appear to the court to be substantial (see r .+(2(b o the?an9ruptc- Rules4 his too has been interprete! to mean that there must be some real !oubtabout the @uestion thus a triable issue upon which urther e"i!ence or arguments were

re@uire! (see Wee $oon 2im nthony v Lim *hor ee%200


12/26

12

[3-" ow !oes a !ebtor !ischarge the e"i!ential bur!en o showing a triable issue o"er the !ebtwhich the cre!itor relies uponJ It is insuicient or the !ebtor merel- to allege that a !isputeeAists4 he court is entitle! to * an! in a sense oblige! to * e"aluate the e"i!ence brought orwar!b- the parties an! !etermine whether there eAists a !ispute which in"ol"es to a substantial eAtent

!ispute! @uestions o act which re@uires a trial (see acific %ecreation(%37& supra at %18& an!%1.& in relation to win!ing*up applications an!nthony Wee(%71& supra at %1+& in relation toban9ruptc- applications4

Court has po$er to stay bankruptcy proceedin#s

[3" ?eore I mo"e on to !iscuss m- reasons or granting the guarantors a sta- o the insol"enc-procee!ings an! or imposing con!itions on that sta- I shoul! establish the source o the court5spower to sta- a win!ing up application an! a ban9ruptc- application whether uncon!itionall- or onterms4

[35" It was common groun! beore me that the court has the power to sta- a win!ing*upapplication on con!ition un!er ss 2)8(1 an! 2)8(2(f o the Companies $ct (Cap )0 200< Re"=! (Companies $ct4 I thereore nee! sa- nothing urther about the power to sta- win!ing*up

procee!ings4 !"# $L% &!" at &";

[%0"$s regar!s a ban9ruptc- application the guarantors initiall- submitte! that i the court in!sthat the !ebt on which a statutor- !eman! is base! is !ispute! on groun!s which appear to thecourt to be substantial the court is oblige! to set asi!e the statutor- !eman! an! !ismiss theban9ruptc- application4 he guarantors rel- on Wong 2wei *heong v B.-7%5 Bank ./%2002& 2 SLR(R 31 (Wong 2wei *heong4

[%" Rule 128 o the ?an9ruptc- Rules pro"i!es as ollows>

=ismissal o. ban*ruptc application

17. he court shall dismissa cre!itor5s ban9ruptc- application where **1.

1. the statutor- !eman! upon which the application is base! is such that the courtwoul! ha"e set it asi!e ha! the !ebtor ma!e an application un!er rule .8(1B 444

1

%emphasis a!!e!&

Rules .8 an! .+ o the ?an9ruptc- Rules pro"i!e as ollows>

Application to set aside statutor demand

1.-(1) Subect to paragraph (2 the !ebtor who has been ser"e! with a statutor- !eman!ma- **

1. within 17 !a-sB or

2. where the !eman! was ser"e! outsi!e uris!iction within 21 !a-s

2 rom the !ate on which the !eman! is ser"e! or !eeme! in accor!ance with theseRules to be ser"e! on him appl- to court b- wa- o originating summons or an or!ersetting asi!e the statutor- !eman!4

1) 6o appearance nee! be entere! to an originating summons un!er this rule4


13/26

13

1..

$earing o. application to set aside statutor demand

1.-(1) ;n the hearing o the application the court ma- either summaril- !etermine theapplication or a!ourn it gi"ing such !irections as it thin9s appropriate4

2) he court shallset asi!e the statutor- !eman! i **

2.3. the !ebt is !ispute! on groun!s which appear to the court to be substantialB

3.

3

%emphasis a!!e!&

[%2" In Wong 2wei *heongat %3& the court sai!>!"# $L% &!" at &">

;n a plain rea!ing o r .+(2(b o the ?an9ruptc- Rules i the !ebtor !isputes the claim in the statutor-!eman! an! that !ispute appears to the court to be substantial the ban9ruptc- court is obligedto setasi!e the statutor- !eman! 444 %emphasis a!!e!&

he guarantors rel- on this passage in Wong 2wei *heong4 he- argue that once a court hearinga ban9ruptc- application has oun! that there are triable issues the !ebt is !ispute! onsubstantial groun!s an! the man!ator- shall obliges the court to !ismiss the ban9ruptc-application4 I note also that in Wong 2wei *heong the court reiterate! its "iew that the languagein the opening sentence o r 128 o the ?an9ruptc- Rules is peremptor- (at %1+& in the conteAto interpreting r 128(c o the ?an9ruptc- Rules in relation to ser"ice o the statutor- !eman!4

[%!" ?ut shall in a legislati"e pro"ision !oes not necessaril- mean that the pro"ision is

man!ator-> it is alwa-s a @uestion o legislati"e intent (*heong $eok Leng v ublic rosecutor%1.++& 1 SLR(R )30 at %78&4 o glean the legislati"e intent behin! rr .+(2 an! 128 I must rea!those pro"isions in the light o ss


14/26

17

1) :hen a ban9ruptc- application has been ma!e against a !ebtor on the groun! that the!ebtor **

2. has aile! to pa- a u!gment !ebt an! there is pen!ing an appeal rom or anapplication to set asi!e the u!gment or or!er b- "irtue o which the u!gment!ebt is pa-ableB or

4. has aile! to compl- with a statutor- !eman! an! there is pen!ing anapplication to set asi!e the statutor- !eman!

4 the court ma- i it thin9s it sta- or !ismiss the application4

1) :here the !ebtor appears at the hearing o the application an! !enies that he is **!"# $L% &!" at &"?

3. in!ebte! to the applicantB or

5. in!ebte! to such an amount as woul! usti- the applicant ma9ing a ban9ruptc-application against him

5 the court ma- on con!ition that the !ebtor urnishes such securit- as the court ma-or!er or pa-ment to the applicant o **

1. an- !ebt which ma- be establishe! against the !ebtor in !ue course o lawB

an!1. the costs o establishing the !ebt

6 sta- all procee!ings on the application or such time as ma- be re@uire! or trial o the@uestion relating to the !ebt4

[%%" ?oth ss


15/26

1)

use! in the authorities on summar- u!gment applications an! in acific %ecreation(%37& supra4

[%5" I thereore hol! that the statutor- scheme o the ?an9ruptc- $ct * an! in particular s


16/26

1

444 there are "er- goo! reasons or the practice o ne"er or!ering a sta- an! the- are these> as soon as awin!ing up or!er has been ma!e the ;icial Recei"er has to ascertain irst o all the assets at the !ate othe or!erB secon!l- the assets at the !ate o the presentation o the petition ha"ing regar! to thepossible repercussions o section 228 o the $ct o 1.7+ %which is materiall- similar to s 2). o theCompanies $ct&B an! thir!l- the liabilities o the compan- at the !ate o the or!er so that he can in! outwho the preerential cre!itors are an! also the unsecure! cre!itors4

Supposing there is an appeal an! the win!ing up or!er is ul timatel- airme! b- the Court o $ppeal an!there has been a sta- his abilit- to !isco"er all these things is "er- seriousl- hampere!> it ma9es it "er-!iicult or him possibl- a -ear later to ascertain what the position was at !ierent times a -earpre"iousl-4 ?ut assuming a sta- is not grante! i the business is being carrie! on at a proit as Iun!erstan! this business now is no a!!itional harm is !one b- reusing a sta-4 $s I un!erstan! it i the;icial Recei"er is gi"en an in!emnit- sa- b- the %!een!ants& who are running this business he willallow it to be carrie! on an! the %!een!ants& in this case coul! be appointe! special managers an!carr- on the business as the- ha"e been !oing4 I the business is being carrie! on at a proit cre!itors othe business ater the !ate o the win!ing up or!er woul! be pai! in priorit- to the unsecure! cre!itors atthe !ate o the or!er as part o the eApenses o the win!ing up4 hen i the appeal is allowe! thebusiness is han!e! bac9 as a going concern it has not suere! an- loss4 ; course i the business canonl- be carrie! on at a loss * it shoul! not be carrie! on at all4

hose I thin9 are reall- the reasons wh- in practice a sta- is not grante! * a proitable business can becarrie! on as it was beore an! han!e! bac9 as a going concern i the appeal is allowe!4 I it is notallowe! then o course cadit Cuaestio4

his was more recentl- cite! with appro"al in In the matter of BL/ %ealty II Limited%2010& =:C18.1 (Ch at %11&*%12&4

[5" he guarantors relie! on another !ecision o the =nglish Chancer- Court in $ociety ofLloyd:s v Beaumont and other debtors%200


24/26

27

10a) ,irst the court accepte! that the approach o the courts to the eAercise o their!iscretion un!er s 2


25/26

2)

to be taAe! i not agree!4 In ?.). o 2012 ?.


26/26

chimbusco international petroleum (singapore

Documents