SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Swee Yen Koh, Joel Quek, Daniel Gaw and Chunlong Lin, WongPartnership
debt (at (3)). In support of this argument, the plaintiff highlighted to the court that the law had recognised such transferable club memberships as: • a chose in action (at (5)); • property that was capable of forming part of the pool of matrimonial assets that was available for division between husband and wife in divorce pro - ceedings (at (6)); and • property that could be the subject matter of a worldwide Mareva injunction (at (6)). Although the court acknowledged that the Member - ship was more than just a mere personal right, but a chose in action (at (10)), it eventually concluded – after undertaking a painstaking analysis of the historical originals of a writ of seizure and sale – that such a writ could not be issued in respect of the Membership because it was a form of process that was meant to be used exclusively for the seizure of tangible per - sonal property, immovable property, and securities (at (30 (c))). Particularly where personal property was concerned, the ROC 2014 had contemplated seizure and sale to be effected by the physical taking of the property and the subsequent sale of the same by way of a public auction (at (30 (d)) – a process that could not likewise apply to the Membership. Nonetheless, the court at the time appreciated the appeal in the plaintiff’s argument that the Membership was a “highly marketable luxury good” and noted that it ought to be capable of being taken and sold in execution, con - sidering that such an approach “would comport with modern reality, where intangible personal property has become the principal repository of wealth in the 21st century” (at (33)). It is against this backdrop that the expanded defini - tion of “movable property” under the ROC 2021 is particularly notable. By broadening the classes of assets that may be subject to an enforcement order, the ROC 2021 appears to directly address what the court in KLW considered to be a procedural lacuna that existed under the ROC 2014. However, it should be noted that there are asset classes that are not cap - tured under the express definition of “movable prop - erty” under the ROC 2021, such as IP rights, digital memberships, and loyalty rewards. It remains to be seen how the court will approach the treatment of
such assets where the enforcement of judgements is concerned. Nonetheless, the reform to the enforcement regime in the ROC 2021 arguably clarifies legislative intent that movable property should not be construed in an overly stringent or restrictive manner for the purposes of seizure, particularly in relation to intangible assets that possess realisable economic value. While practi - cal difficulties may still exist as to the mechanics of enforcement where such intangible assets are con - cerned (see the court’s observations in KLW at (33)), as can be seen from the approach taken in ByBit , the court will facilitate enforcement in a sensible and practical manner. This is a welcome development in Singapore’s enforcement regime. Attachment of debts Proceedings for the attachment of debt, previously referred to as “garnishee proceedings” under Order 49 of the ROC 2014, are now governed by the con - solidated enforcement regime in Order 22 of the ROC 2021. Although there has yet to be comprehensive judicial analysis of the legal principles governing the making of – or challenges to – orders for the attach - ment of debts under the ROC 2021, the procedural distinctions between the two regimes are already evi - dent. In DBS Trustee Limited (in its capacity as trustee of CDL Hospitality Real Estate Investment Trust) v Lite BB Pte Ltd (Tan Jinyang Joel and others, non-parties) (2024) SGDC 310 (“ DBS Trustee ”), the district judge (DJ) provided valuable guidance on the legal frame - work governing applications to release the attach - ment of a debt. This decision is one of the first to engage directly with the relevant provisions under the ROC 2021 and sheds light on how the court may approach such applications within the context of the new enforcement regime. At the outset, the DJ identified the obvious parallel between the processes under the ROC 2021 and the ROC 2014 – in that both essentially involve two key stages (at (61)), as follows. • First, the enforcement applicant/judgment credi - tor must obtain an attachment/garnishee order
435 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook