SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Swee Yen Koh, Joel Quek, Daniel Gaw and Chunlong Lin, WongPartnership
required further testing by cross-examination ((17) to (18)), as well as the fact that there were various asser - tions and counter-assertions of bad faith ((20)). It is arguable that this requirement under the ROC 2014 finds expression in the first limb of the second - ary threshold under the ROC 2021 that a trial will only be ordered where “necessary to ensure that justice is done or to prevent an abuse of process”. In DBS Trus- tee , the court held (at (108) to (109)) that “circumstanc - es may arise where a summary determination based only on affidavit evidence would not be appropriate” and “(t)he same concerns under the ROC 2014” that “summary determination is only appropriate where the defence is ”hopeless” on the facts and/or the law” will “continue to apply within the statutory objection procedure under the ROC 2021” (at (109)). On the other hand, the second and third limbs of the secondary threshold under the ROC 2021 appear to be fresh requirements. With regard to the second limb, the court in DBS Trustee observed that “[i]n many cases, the application of th [e] second requirement is likely to reach an outcome aligned with the result on the primary threshold”, but caveated that “[i]n certain unique circumstances, however, a holistic assessment of the [i]deals may very well make it inappropriate for the [c]ourt to order a trial even if there is an arguable defence in fact and/or law”. While explaining that “[i] t would not be meaningful to attempt to define what such unique circumstances would entail”, the court suggested that “such a situation may arise in a low value case that involves an arguable (but relatively confined) question of fact” (at (110) to (113)). Finally, the court observed that the third limb is not controver - sial and generally “does not pose an obstacle to the making of an order for trial” (at (115)). Stay of enforcement of judgments and orders Pursuant to Order 22, Rule 13 (1) of the ROC 2021, a party liable under any court order may apply for stay of enforcement if a “special case” exists rendering enforcement inappropriate. This provision recognises that, in certain exceptional circumstances, immediate
enforcement may cause undue hardship or injustice and thus the provision allows the court discretion to temporarily halt enforcement pending further consid - eration. The equivalent provision to Order 22, Rule 13 (1) of the ROC 2021 under the Singapore International Com - mercial Court (SICC) Rules 2021 is Order 24, Rule 2 (1). Unlike Order 22, Rule 13 (1) of the ROC 2021, the wording of Order 24, Rule 2 (1) of the SICC Rules 2021 does not explicitly require the applicant to dem - onstrate a “special case” in order to obtain a stay of enforcement. Nonetheless, in Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd and another matter (2024) SGHC(I) 22, the SICC clarified that special circum - stances must still be established before the court will exercise its discretion to grant a stay. Specifically, the court will only grant a stay if – supported by affidavit evidence – the applicant shows that there is no rea - sonable probability of getting back any damages or costs that are paid should the appeal succeed (at (15) to (16)). Separately, the issue of whether a lower court has the authority to grant a stay of an enforcement order issued by a higher court was recently addressed in COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co Ltd v PT OKI Pulp and Paper Mills and others (2024) SGHC 273 (“COSCO Shipping”). In Cosco Shipping , the appli - cants had obtained an anti-suit injunction from the court of appeal – after which, the defendants applied to the High Court for a stay of execution. The appli - cants contended that the High Court lacked jurisdic - tion to grant such a stay and only the court of appeal could do so. The High Court disagreed. It reasoned that the court of appeal only exercises appellate civil jurisdiction, whereas an application for an interim stay of execution did not fall within the court of appeal’s appellate jurisdiction or incidental appellate jurisdic - tion (at (14) to (17)). Further, the court held that noth - ing in the language of Order 22, Rule 13 of the ROC 2021 restricted an application for a stay of execution to be made only in a court of the same level within the judicial hierarchy (at (19)).
437 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook