SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Swee Yen Koh, Joel Quek, Daniel Gaw and Chunlong Lin, WongPartnership LLP
issue in respect of a transferable club membership. The plaintiff highlighted that the law had recognised such memberships as: • a chose in action (at paragraph (5)); • property that was capable of forming part of the pool of matrimonial assets that were available for division between husband and wife in divorce pro - ceedings (at paragraph (6)); and • property that could be the subject matter of a worldwide Mareva injunction (at paragraph (6)). Although the court acknowledged that the mem - bership was a chose in action (at paragraph 10), it concluded that a writ of seizure and sale could not issue because such writs were historically confined to tangible personal property, immovable property, and securities (at paragraph 30 (c)). The ROC 2014 contemplated seizure by physical taking and sale by public auction – inapplicable to club memberships (at paragraph 30 (d)). Nonetheless, the court noted that such memberships were “highly marketable luxury good[s]” that “ought to be capable of being taken and sold in execution”, an approach that “would comport with modern reality, where intangible personal prop - erty has become the principal repository of wealth in the 21st century” (at paragraph 33). The expanded definition under the ROC 2021 directly addresses what KLW identified as a procedural lacu - na. However, certain asset classes remain outside the express definition, including IP rights, digital member - ships, and loyalty rewards. How courts will approach these assets remains to be seen. The reform arguably signals that “movable property” should not be construed restrictively for enforcement purposes, particularly for intangible assets with realis - able economic value. As ByBit demonstrates, courts will facilitate enforcement in a sensible and practical manner – a welcome development. Attachment of debts Proceedings for the attachment of debt, previously “garnishee proceedings” under Order 49 of the ROC 2014, are now governed by the consolidated enforce - ment regime in Order 22. While there has yet to be comprehensive judicial analysis of the applicable legal
principles, the procedural distinctions between the two regimes are already evident. The authors previously considered DBS Trustee Lim- ited v Lite BB Pte Ltd [2024], SGDC 310 (“DBS Trus - tees”), which provided guidance on applications to release an attachment of debt under the ROC 2021. The court confirmed that the ROC 2021 preserves the two-stage structure from the ROC 2014: an ex parte application for an attachment order, followed by an inter partes hearing if disputed, with determination on affidavit evidence (at paragraph 61). A key procedural difference is that under the ROC 2021, the objector must formally initiate objection by filing a Notice of Objection, followed by an application for release (at paragraph 72). Under the ROC 2014, the court con - vened a “show cause” hearing once a provisional gar - nishee order was served; no formal application was required from the objector. On burden of proof, the enforcement applicant con - tinues to bear the burden of proving the debt exists where disputed (at paragraphs 67–70). The court dis - tinguished Art Ask Agency SL v Person ( s ) Unknown (2023), SGHCR 14, which placed the onus on the objector – clarifying that Art Ask Agency was con - fined to situations where the debt’s existence was undisputed, with disagreement only on the objector’s entitlement to retain the debt as security. The court confirmed that it retains the power to order a full trial rather than resolve an attachment dispute summarily, notwithstanding that the ROC 2021 (unlike the ROC 2014) does not expressly provide for this. It laid down a two-tier test: first, whether an argu - able defence exists in fact and law; and second, if so, whether ordering a trial is (i) necessary to do justice or prevent abuse of process, (ii) consistent with the ROC 2021’s Ideals, and (iii) not otherwise prohibited by law. Under the ROC 2014, the judgment creditor had to establish a prima facie case, after which the garnishee had to demonstrate a “fair or reasonable probability” of a “real or bona fide defence” that was at least “argu - able” or “not hopeless” (see Telecom Credit Inc v Star Commerce Pte Ltd [2017] SGHCR 3 at paragraph 5). Bare assertions were insufficient. In Telecom Credit , a
408 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook