SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Swee Yen Koh, Joel Quek, Daniel Gaw and Chunlong Lin, WongPartnership LLP
ed their release pending further order (at paragraphs 56–57). Maintaining the attachment in abeyance was consistent with the Ideals in the ROC 2021. Examination of the enforcement respondent The examination of a judgment debtor, previously under O 48 of the ROC 2014, is now conducted as the examination of an enforcement respondent under O 22, r 11 of the ROC 2021. In Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA [2025], SGHCR 16 (“ Third Eye ”), the AR confirmed that the principles under the ROC 2014 apply with equal force. As observed by the AR, the two regimes correspond in the following respects: • the requirement of personal service under O 48, r 1 (2) of the ROC 2014 is mirrored in O 22, r 11 (5) of the ROC 2021 (at paragraph (26)); • the Rules permitting electronic service of docu - ments otherwise requiring personal service are carried over in identical terms (at paragraph (30)); • neither set of Rules limits the number of times a creditor may resort to the procedure (at paragraph (68)); and • under both sets of Rules, the order is a discretion - ary relief granted on an ex parte, or without-notice, basis (at paragraph (66)). The court rejected the contention that a judgment creditor is entitled to an EJD (Examination of Judg - ment Debtor) order as of right; it remains a discretion - ary relief (at paragraph 66). The court clarified the threshold for examining the same examinee a second time. Because an exami - nation gathers information (which may or may not lead to recovery) rather than itself being a mode of enforcement, a creditor’s entitlement is not unquali - fied (at paragraphs 65 and 67). Where an examinee has already been examined, the creditor must dem - onstrate new circumstances or a change in circum - stances making it likely that further information could be obtained (at paragraph 72). The threshold is not onerous. The creditor need not prove an actual change in finances or that assets were concealed; it need only point to credible information
suggesting further information is likely (at paragraph 78). On the facts, an inconsistent payment following the first examination established the requisite change in circumstances (at paragraph 81). Stay of enforcement of judgments and orders Under O 22r 13 (1) of the ROC 2021, a party liable under any court order may apply for a stay of enforce - ment if a “special case” exists. This recognises that immediate enforcement may sometimes cause undue hardship or injustice. The equivalent provision under the Singapore Inter - national Commercial Court (SICC) Rules 2021 is O 24 r 2 (1), which does not explicitly require a “special case”. In Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd [2024], SGHC(I) 22, the SICC clarified that special circumstances must still be established. Specifically, the court ought to see that the appeal, if successful, is not nugatory. Thus a stay will be granted if it can be shown by affidavit that, if the damages and costs are paid, there is no reasonable probability of getting them back if the appeal succeeds, or that there is some other consequence of enforcement which cannot be readily undone if the appeal succeeds (at paragraphs 15–17). In COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co Ltd v PT OKI Pulp and Paper Mills [2024], SGHC 273 (“ COSCO Shipping ”), the High Court addressed whether a low - er court can stay an enforcement order issued by a higher court. The applicants had obtained an anti-suit injunction from the Court of Appeal; the defendants applied to the High Court for a stay. The High Court held that it had jurisdiction: the Court of Appeal exer - cises only appellate jurisdiction, while an application for an interim stay does not fall within appellate or incidental appellate jurisdiction (at paragraphs 14–17). Further, nothing in O 22 r 13 restricts stay applications to courts of the same level (at paragraph 19). In MBF Northern Securities Sdn Bhd v Purwadi [2025], SGHC 184 (“ MBF Northern Securities ”), the defend - ant applied under O 22 r 13 of the ROC 2021 to stay enforcement of Malaysian judgments registered under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judg - ments Act 1921, pending impeachment proceedings in Malaysia.
410 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook