SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Swee Yen Koh, Joel Quek, Daniel Gaw and Chunlong Lin, WongPartnership LLP
The court observed that O 22 r 13 confers a general power to stay enforcement; it is not concerned specif - ically with stay pending appeal (at paragraph 29). The principles developed for stay pending appeal need not apply automatically – the range of factual scenarios under O 22 r 13 is very wide, and not all of these sce - narios would be analogous to those concerning a stay pending appeal (at paragraph 30). However, some scenarios will be analogous to stay pending appeal, and the principles may apply with modifications (at paragraph 31). Stay pending dispos - al of foreign impeachment proceedings is one such example. The court allowed the application in part, rejecting the argument that Singapore courts should not stay enforcement when the Malaysian courts have not. The court reasoned that there is no practical utility in requiring the applicant to seek a stay in Malaysia where no enforcement is being pursued there (at para - graph 62). It clarified that Tan Hock Keng v Malaysian Trustees Bhd [2021], SGHC(A) 18 did not lay down an inflexible rule that a stay must not be granted if there is no stay in the originating jurisdiction (at paragraph 61). This is a sensible approach. In many cases, a creditor may only be pursuing enforcement in Singapore, and there is no utility in requiring the debtor to seek a stay abroad when no enforcement is being sought there. Practitioners representing debtors should nonethe - less consider whether seeking a foreign stay might strengthen their position where grounds for challenge exist. Stay or dismissal of appeal on grounds of non- payment of costs Under O 21 r 2 (6) of the ROC 2021, the court may stay or dismiss any application, action or appeal if a party refuses or neglects to pay costs ordered within a specified time, whether in the present or related pro - ceedings.
In Owner of the vessel ( s ) “ CHLOE V ” v UBS AG [2026], 1 SLR 107 (“ CHLOE V ”), the Court of Appeal consid - ered the principles governing stay of appeal for non- payment of costs. The respondent must first show, on a prima facie basis, that the appellant has “refused or neglected” to pay outstanding costs. This threshold is low – the mere fact of non-payment suffices (at paragraph 31). The burden then shifts to the appellant to provide a good reason why a stay should not be granted; only the appellant knows the true state of its finances (at paragraph 32). It is no answer for the appellant to allege that third-party funding was voluntary and limited to the pursuit of claims; costs arose from that funding, and there is no reason why funders should not be required to pay outstanding costs if they wish to proceed with the appeal (at paragraph 33). If the appellant cannot provide a good reason, a stay should ordinarily be granted (at paragraph 32). Any stay should be time-limited; if costs remain outstand - ing beyond that period, the appeal is deemed struck out automatically, ensuring appeals do not remain pending indefinitely (at paragraph 32). If the appellant genuinely lacks financial resources to pay, the failure may not be regarded as refusal or neglect. The court should ordinarily allow the appeal to proceed, unless plainly hopeless (at paragraph 35). The approach in CHLOE V is welcome: it prevents litigants with financial means from proceeding with appeals while disregarding costs orders made below. A respondent faced with an appellant who refuses to comply with costs orders without valid reason should thus consider applying for the appeal to be stayed or dismissed.
411 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook