Lim, Swee Huan v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy and Anor Cho, Hong Lien v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy and Anor
[1998] FCA 698
•17 JUNE 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BANKRUPTCY - Applications to annul bankruptcies - denial of service of bankruptcy notice and creditors petition - question of fact whether in the circumstances sequestration orders ought not to have been made - whether bankrupts served.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 s 153B
Re Bond (1979) 22 ALR 287
Re Anasis; Ex parte Total Australia Ltd (1985) 63 ALR 493
SWEE HUAN LIM v OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY & ANOR
No QG 7736 of 1997
HONG LIEN CHO v OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY & ANOR
No QG 7737 of 1997
COOPER J
BRISBANE
17 JUNE 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 7736 of 1997
BETWEEN:
SWEE HUAN LIM
APPLICANTAND:
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY & ANOR
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 7737 of 1997
BETWEEN:
HONG LIEN CHO
APPLICANTAND:
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY & ANOR
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
COOPER J
DATE OF ORDER:
17 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 7736 of 1997
BETWEEN:
SWEE HUAN LIM
APPLICANTAND:
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY & ANOR
RESPONDENT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG 7737 of 1997
BETWEEN:
HONG LIEN CHO
APPLICANTAND:
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY & ANOR
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
COOPER J
DATE:
17 JUNE 1998
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 31 October 1996 sequestration orders were made against Swee Huan Lim and Hong Lien Cho (“the bankrupts”). Mr Lim and Ms Cho are married and at all material times have resided together. The act of bankruptcy proved against the bankrupts was a failure to comply with a bankruptcy notice served upon each of them. The bankruptcy notices were issued in respect of the unsatisfied balance of a judgment obtained against them in the Supreme Court of Queensland by Westpac Banking Corporation (“Westpac”). The amount demanded by the bankruptcy notice was $231,969.73.
On 15 December 1997 the bankrupts each filed an application seeking orders that respectively, his and her bankruptcy be annulled. Each of the bankrupts denied being served with either the bankruptcy notice or the creditor’s petition.
The two applications were heard together. Mr Lim represented himself and his wife, their solicitors on the record having sought and been granted leave to withdraw when the applications came on for hearing.
The applications for annulment are brought under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (“the Act”) which states :-
“153B If the Court is satisfied that a sequestration order ought not to have been made or, in the case of a debtor’s petition, that the petition ought not to have been presented or ought not to have been accepted by the Official Receiver, the Court may make an order annulling the bankruptcy.”
If it be the fact that the bankruptcy notices were not served, then the bankrupts would have satisfied the requirement that the sequestration order ought not to have been made. This follows because service of the notices is essential to establish the act of bankruptcy under s 40(1)(g) of the Act: Re Bond (1979) 22 ALR 287.
If the petitions were not served upon the bankrupts, there would have been such a denial of natural justice that the bankrupts would be entitled to have the sequestration orders annulled and to have a hearing on the petitions unless there is shown to be nothing genuinely in dispute in respect of the issues raised under the petitions: Re Anasis; Ex parte Total Australia Ltd (1985) 63 ALR 493 at 499.
Service of the bankruptcy notices on each bankrupt on 22 May 1996 was deposed to by Mr Adrian Gavin. Mr Gavin also swore that on 28 June 1996 he served both bankrupts with the creditor’s petition and supporting documentation. Service was effected on each occasion at a house property at 70 Bridgenorth Street, Carindale.
This property is claimed by the bankrupts to have been that of their son and daughter.
Mr Gavin, the process server, swore, so far as is presently relevant, the following affidavit of service on 4 June 1996 :-
“1. On 22 May 1996 at 8:30pm, I served the [sic] HONG LIEN CHO with a copy of a bankruptcy notice, signed and stamped by a Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy and issued on the application of Westpac Banking Corporation, by delivering it to her personally at 70 Bridgenorth Street, Carindale.
2. I was able to identify the person I served as the said HONG LIEN CHO as at the time of serving the said HONG LIEN CHO, I asked her, ‘Are you HONG LIEN CHO? She replied, ‘Yes I am, what do you want?’ I then said, ‘May I speak with SWEE HUAN LIM it is very urgent.’ She then disappeared into the house and I could hear a lot of shouting in Asian.
3. On the 22nd day of May 1996 at 8:30pm or thereafter, I served SWEE HUAN LIM with a copy of a bankruptcy notice, signed and stamped by a Deputy Registrar in Bankruptcy, issued on the application of Westpac Banking Corporation, (ARBN 007 457 141) by delivering it to him personally at 70 Bridgenorth Street, Carindale.
4. I was able to identify the person I served as the said SWEE HUAN LIM as at the time of serving the said SWEE HUAN LIM, I asked him, ‘Are you SWEE HUAN LIM?’ He replied ‘Yes, what do you want?’ I then said ‘Are you the SWEE HUAN LIM referred to in Bankruptcy Notice No 33/96 issued on behalf of the judgment creditor Westpac Banking Corporation?’ He then replied, ‘No, there is no SWEE HUAN LIM here. How did you get this address? Who are you?’
5. I then said ‘SWEE HUAN LIM and HONG LIEN CHO you have identified yourselves as being the persons referred to in the Bankruptcy Notice No 33/96 and I am legally serving you both with the documents.’”
Mr Gavin also swore an affidavit as to service of the petition and supporting document. In that affidavit, sworn on 10 July 1996, he said :-
“1. On the [sic] 28 June 1996 at 7.10pm, I served SWEE HUAN LIM with an official copy of the petition of WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION together with a copy of the affidavit of STEPHEN WILLIAM CLARKE sworn 20 June 1996 verifying paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the petition, and a copy of the affidavit of TAMMY MARIE HOURIGAN sworn the [sic] 20 June 1996 verifying paragraph 4 of the petition by delivering them to him personally at 70 Bridgnorth [sic] Street, Carindale.
2. I was able to identify the person I served as the said SWEE HUAN LIM as I had previously served on him Bankruptcy Notice No 33/96 on 22 May 1996 at the address referred to in paragraph 1 above.
3. On the [sic] 28 June 1996 at 7.10pm I served HONG LIEN CHO with an official copy of the petition of WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION together with a copy of the affidavit of STEPHEN WILLIAM CLARKE sworn 20 June 1996 verifying paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the petition, and a copy of the affidavit of TAMMY MARIE HOURIGAN sworn 20 June 1996 verifying paragraph 4 of the petition by delivering them to her personally at 70 Bridgnorth [sic] Street, Carindale aforesaid.
4. I was able to identify the person I served as the said HONG LIEN CHO as I had previously served on her Bankruptcy Notice No 33/96 on 22 May 1996 at the address referred to in paragraph 3 above.”
For the purposes of these applications, Mr Gavin swore a further affidavit dated 18 February 1998 which included the following :-
“3. On 20 June 1996, I again attended at 70 Bridgenorth Street, Carindale. I knocked at the door and was answered by Swee Huan Lim whom I recognised from my meeting with him on 22 May 1996. I also saw Hong Lien Cho through the hallway whom I recognised from my meeting with her on 22 May 1996. Both parties recognised me and shut the door. Again I spoke to them through the door and told them that as they had previously identified themselves as Hong Lien Cho and Swee Huan Lim I was now serving them with a creditors petition on behalf of Westpac Banking Corporation by leaving the creditors petition on the front doorstep open for inspection, which I did. Now produced and marked ‘AJG-2’ ‘AJG-3’ and ‘AJG-4’ respectively are copies of my affidavits dated 10 July 1996, 30 July 1996 and 30 October 1996, in which I deposed to the service of the Creditor’s Petition.”
The bankrupts deny that the events sworn to in Mr Gavin’s affidavits occurred.
Mr Gavin was cross-examined by Mr Lim. It was put to Mr Gavin that he never served any documents and that his affidavits and evidence were concoctions. The variation between the service dates of the petition apparent in the affidavits was put to Mr Gavin. He explained the variation as a typographical error and reiterated that service of the petitions had been effected on 28 June 1996 and not on 20 June 1996 as appeared in his most recent affidavit.
Mr Lim cross-examined Mr Gavin as to the number of occasions Mr Gavin attended at the residence at Carindale between July 1996 and October 1996. During the cross-examination, the following exchanged occurred :-
“That is 21 times you have been. What for?---I was acting under instruction from the company that I was working for that I required either photographs or video evidence to identify the actual people that I’d served on that date with both bankruptcy and creditors petitions.
You have stated here you attempted to either contact or photograph Swee Huan Lim or - and Hong Lien Cho - on 21 times you went there?---Mm.
Did you make any contact?---No.
Did you photograph?---On one occasion video evidence was taken.
Now, why did you have to do this?---That I don’t know. I was - once again, I’m acting under instruction from my company.
If you have served the notices, why do you need to go 21 times to contact?---Maybe you can tell me that.
Precisely. I’m asking you the question?---And if you’ll let me answer the question: as I said, I was acting under instruction - - -
Of what?--- - - - from the company that I worked for - - -
HIS HONOUR: Just let him finish his answer and then you can ask further questions. Go on.
THE WITNESS: - - - which was Crowmont Services. I was then contacted further and said that people that I had served the documents on were disputing that they’d actually been served. I was then requested to attend the residence and obtain either photos or video evidence to prove that these were, indeed, the people that I’d served.
MR LIM: Who told you that it was not served?---That’s - I acted under instructed [sic] from my company.
.....
MR LIM: Can you tell us who was the one who brought up to you regarding the dispute that the matter - the services were not made?---I received a phone call from the company that I worked for, being Crowmont Services, and they said that there had been some dispute as to the identification of the people who had been served. As I’ve just said, I then had to take photographs or video evidence to show the people that I’d actually served the papers to.
.....
You have been there 21 times and the door was not answered at all, that is what you have said here?---I did not say that I went to the door on 21 occasions. I said that I attended the residence on those occasions.And when you knock on the door nobody opened?---Each time that I knocked on the door nobody answered the door, no.”
Ultimately, Mr Gavin video-taped the male driver of a blue Mercedes Benz motor vehicle in Chinatown at Fortitude Valley, Brisbane. Mr Gavin swore an affidavit, and repeated in evidence before me, that the driver of the vehicle was the male person served with the documentation at Carindale. The driver of the vehicle was identified by Mr Alan Baker, the manager of Retail Asset Management with Westpac. Mr Baker deposed to the fact that he had had dealings, since April 1992, with Mr Lim and had been present in the Supreme Court of Queensland when Mr Lim gave evidence in the proceedings brought against the bankrupts by Westpac. Mr Baker was cross-examined by Mr Lim. It was not put to Mr Baker that the person in the video was not Mr Lim. Rather, the cross-examination was directed to the absence of photographic or video material of his wife and why such material was not obtained prior to instructions being given to Mr Gavin to serve the proceedings. Mr Lim declined an invitation by the court to screen the video if he wished to have it shown.
Mr Gavin was also cross-examined by Mr Lim as to surveillance of Mr Lim and his wife and family at a house at 21 St Andrews Crescent, Carindale and in the Mercedes Benz vehicle on 6 and 7 March 1997. Mr Lim’s complaints were not to deny that the surveillance had occurred, but directed to the manner in which it was carried out.
Mr Lim swore that he first learnt of the bankruptcies from the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia (ITSA) and Ms Cho said she first heard of the bankruptcies from her husband. They swore that they advised the Official Receiver that they had not been served with any documents in relation to their bankruptcies and recorded this on the statement of affairs of each of them.
The present trustee was appointed by a meeting of creditors on 5 December 1998. He first met with the bankrupts on 9 January 1997 on which occasion they stated that they had not been served with the documentation in respect of the bankruptcy proceedings. The trustee acknowledges that the statement was made and swears that he told the bankrupts they should seek legal advice in relation to the matter. He further advised them that he intended to discharge his duty as trustee for so long as the sequestration orders remained in place. Notwithstanding the making of these statements, no steps were taken by the bankrupts to annul the sequestration orders until these applications were filed on 15 December 1997.
When questioned as to the reason for the delay from the time of discovering the bankruptcies to the bringing of these applications for annulment, Mr Lim said :-
“... I was just waiting for the bank to clear up the matter, and once they bankrupt me they know I got no choice but to - I been forced - attempts have been made to extort a settlement, force me to accept the debt.”
This answer, I find, is disingenuous having regard to earlier evidence he gave as follows :-
“Mr Lim, they had a judgment against you for $586,000?---Yes, but right now is an unsecured debt.
Well, if you had any problem with that judgment, you should have appealed that judgment, should you not?---I wasn’t going to appeal to something which was already wrong in the first place. You know that’s wrong. You have been acted [sic] for them since 1992 or, rather, your company.
Mr Lim, that’s not important. Now, you would know, would you not, that once there is judgment in a Court for a debt, the creditor normally seeks to enforce the amount of the judgment?---Yes.
You would know that from being in business in Singapore and Australia?---Yes.
So what did you expect Westpac would do once it had attained a judgment against you for $586,000?---Yes, I’ll come to Court and get them to prove the debt.
They already had, Mr Lim?---Yes, but they have come to bankrupt me, right, so I would like to clear it up in the Bankruptcy Court.
Okay. So why are you now trying to annul that bankruptcy?---I’m trying not - because I’m trying to prove here that you fellows haven’t served it. You are trying to cover up the whole matter to cover up the original law matter to deceive the Courts, to deceive me, to defraud me, to defraud the Commonwealth. The documents are right now here.
Are you saying the Courts have defrauded you?---No. I say you people, your clients, the Service, have all collaborated into a conspiracy since about 10 years ago to cover up. And I think those people in both are aware of it but you just refuse - just refuse - - -
Mr Lim, you cross-examined bank officers at length in that Supreme Court proceedings, didn’t you?---Yes, and they - yes.
And what did Thomas J say in relation to whether or not - - -?---We were short changed.
- - - those matters had been established?---We were short changed.”
If Mr Lim was waiting for Westpac to take steps to set aside the bankruptcy notices or to acknowledge that no debt was owing to it by the bankrupts, then there was no reasonable basis for adopting such a course. Absent such an explanation, there was no explanation for the delay sworn to by the bankrupts, although in the cross-examination of the trustee Mr Lim asserted that it was the duty of the trustee to take steps to rectify the situation arising from non-service and that the bankrupts did not have the funds to engage lawyers to act on their behalf. The proceedings for annulment were in fact prepared and filed by HCF Lawyers who remained as solicitors on the record for the bankrupts until the applications were called on for hearing.
I am satisfied that the continued investigation by the trustee into the property and affairs of the bankrupts is more likely than anything else to have been the precipitating factor which caused the applications to be brought.
On 18 March 1997 the trustee interviewed the bankrupts and sought details of the ownership of the Mercedes Benz sedan in which Mr Lim was videoed by Mr Gavin. It was also around this time that the trustee arranged for surveillance of the bankrupts at the premises in St Andrews Crescent, Carindale and in using the Mercedes Benz sedan, which surveillance was a matter of complaint by the bankrupts at the time it occurred and on the hearing of these applications.
By June 1997 the trustee had established that the registered ownership of the Mercedes Benz sedan had been transferred from Mr Lim to his son for no valuable consideration, nine days after Westpac obtained judgment in the Supreme Court of Queensland, and that the trustee had also established that Mr Lim purchased the vehicle new in 1995 for cash, drawn on a bank account which had not been disclosed by the bankrupts to the trustee.
The trustee was also aware, by June 1997, that the land at 21 St Andrews Crescent, Carindale had been purchased in May 1996 in the name of the bankrupts’ son and daughter and a house constructed on it. The house and land were, so far as the title revealed, unencumbered.
On 18 June 1997 the trustee attempted to conduct an examination of the bankrupts’ son and daughter concerning the ownership of the motor vehicle and the house property. The examinees, the trustee states, were unco-operative and disruptive during the examination. Also on 18 June 1997 the trustee caused a notice to be served under s 139ZQ on the bankrupts’ son requiring that he pay to the trustee the sum of $62,550, the value of the motor vehicle.
On 19 November 1997 the District Court at Brisbane gave the bankrupts’ son, Mr Jen Ann Lim, conditional leave to defend the trustee’s claim for $62,550 plus interest. The condition required him to pay that sum into court within fourteen days or provide security to the satisfaction of the trustee within the same period. Security was provided on 1 December 1997 by bank guarantee and proceedings were begun in this court by the son to set aside the s 139ZQ notice.
On 2 December 1997 the trustee served upon the bankrupts a questionnaire requiring information be provided within fourteen days of that date and that passports, books and records be delivered up to the trustee within the same period. On 15 December 1997 the applications seeking annulment of the sequestration orders were filed.
On 17 March 1998 the trustee wrote to the bankrupts referring to his letters to them of 12 March 1997, 9 April 1997 and 2 December 1997 and stating that the passports had not been delivered up, books of account and bank records had not been disclosed and delivered up, information as to current addresses and telephone numbers had not been furnished, and that the questionnaires had not been answered and returned as requested. The bankrupts did not reply to the trustee’s complaints and Mr Lim, in his cross-examination of the trustee, took objection to the trustee continuing to seek the materials after these applications had been filed. He said :-
“Yet, on 17 March you were attempting to write to me despite the fact that you have got solicitors regarding this matter. You have breached court procedures, is it not, that this matter is now in court in the Federal Court?---It’s in court, yes, and I was performing my job as a trustee in trying to get some simple answers and books and records from you.
Why did you not - - -?---Very simple matters that you could just comply with,
Why did you not ask your solicitor to write to me?---Because I wrote to you.
You are trying to by-pass the court?---I don’t want further costs and I’ve got a job to do and that’s what - all I’ve been trying to do for these number of years. I mean if only you deliver your records and provide the assistance that I need to properly investigate these matters, I conclude my investigations.
You were trying to subvert the course of justice if you try to act above the law, above the court. You know this case is in court, the previous - his case is in court and that is one end of this hiccup, yet you send a letter to try to get me to sign the notification. I think that is - - -?---That’s not the case.”
The case advanced by the bankrupts on these applications is not one of mistaken identity, although a slight suggestion of this was advanced, nor is it one that the leaving of documents at the premises in the circumstances described by Mr Gavin did not constitute sufficient service at law. Rather, it is a straight denial that the events sworn to by Mr Gavin occurred at all. Faced with a stark choice between the evidence of Mr Gavin and the evidence of the bankrupts, I prefer the evidence of Mr Gavin. To reject Mr Gavin’s evidence requires a finding that on three occasions prior to the institution of these applications, he knowingly swore false affidavits as to service in order to earn a service fee. It also requires a finding that he produced a video of Mr Lim, and swore a further affidavit reaffirming service of Mr Lim by reference to the video when he knew that questions as to service of the documents had arisen. Mr Gavin had no apparent interest to maintain the lie alleged against him and an opportunity to retract on the basis of mistaken identity if he wished to conceal it. Instead, he attended the premises at Bridgenorth Street on twenty-one occasions between July and October to obtain the photographic evidence he was instructed to obtain. He was cross-examined at length and he has not been shaken in his evidence. To suggest that he is part of a conspiracy involving Westpac and others is not credible. He was then a process server who subcontracted the job for Crowmont Services from which he obtained his instructions. I am not prepared to find that Mr Gavin has knowingly given false evidence.
The bankrupts have a real interest in having the sequestration orders set aside, given the conduct of the trustee in pursuing recovery of property standing in the bankrupts’ children’s names as property of the bankrupts. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the applications and the bankrupts have treated the applications as a justification for refusing to supply the information sought, or to provide the documentation requested by the trustee, both before and after the filing of the applications.
The bankrupts sought to suggest that they were not present at the address at 70 Bridgenorth Street, Carindale on the relevant dates and that they did not reside at the property which was their son and daughter’s house. There was the hint of a suggestion that it may have been the son and daughter who were served at 70 Bridgenorth Street. Mr Lim said :-
“Closed. You just - if it was closed, how is it she can open the door for you, a total stranger in the middle of the night, and then leave the door open that you say - both the security door and the door, and shout for someone. Are you sure it was Madam Cho, because my son and daughter was there? He was also my son?---If a female is standing in front of me and I ask her - - -
You are lying. I am saying you are lying.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Lim, let him answer the question. You have asked him about three questions there. Are you putting to him that the lady he spoke to was your daughter?
Mr LIM: No, it could be - I want to know whether he spoke to anybody. But - sorry, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Just ask the question.
Mr LIM: Can you read paragraph 2 again, please. The last sentence?---
They then shut the security door
I just put to you, Mr Gavin, that you just repeated twice that the door - or security door was not open?---Like I said, the security door remained closed. That may have been a typographical error. The front door of the residence was open when I knocked on the door. The security door remained closed.
I also put it to you, you have never served it. It was not served. It was never open. There was no one there. You make up this whole story, didn’t you?---No, sir, I haven’t made up any of it.”
To accept the suggestion that the son and daughter were served would raise the possibility of mistaken identity. However, the son was present in court on the hearing of these applications and chose not to give evidence. The daughter did not give evidence. Ms Cho swore that she was not at the premises at Bridgenorth Street most of the time and when she was present, she would never open the door if it was knocked upon. Ms Cho was not at court when the applications were to be heard and was only in the court room when giving evidence. Otherwise, she remained elsewhere in the precincts of the court. Importantly, she did not confront Mr Gavin nor suggest to him in person that he had served someone other than herself. At the conclusion of Mr Gavin’s cross-examination, the following occurred :-
“Your Honour, I think I am finished with - - -
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Any re-examination?
MR SHEAHAN: No re-examination.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Mr Gavin.
MR LIM: Just - sorry, your Honour, just a couple of more questions.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right, but I am going to excuse him so he will go. When you have finished asking these questions, he will go, so if you want to ask him anything further, ask him now.
MR LIM: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: And if your wife wants to come back into the court and ask him any questions, she should do so now.
MR LIM: No, I just have a couple of questions to ask him.”
I do not find the bankrupts’ evidence credible and I reject it. I am satisfied that the bankrupts’ delay in bringing the applications arose from their preparedness to allow the bankruptcy period to work itself out and thereby allow the bankrupts to be released from their present indebtedness provided the trustee took no serious action to investigate their affairs or to seek to recover property. When this did not occur and circumstances developed as they did up to 2 December 1997, the applications were filed.
The way the evidence has been left it is impossible to say whether the complaints as to service made to the trustees were as to service in fact or service at law where the petition and supporting material were left at the door of 70 Bridgenorth Street and not physically given to or accepted by the bankrupts.
I am satisfied that at the relevant time the bankrupts were resident at 70 Bridgenorth Street, Carindale. I am satisfied that Mr Gavin served two persons at that address on each of the occasions he deposed to and that the persons served were the bankrupts.
The bankrupts have failed to make out the grounds necessary to justify the making of orders annulling the sequestration orders. Each application is dismissed with costs following the event.
I certify that this and the preceding twelve (12) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Cooper
Associate:
Dated: 17 June 1998
Applicants in person: Swee Huan Lim
Hong Lien ChoCounsel for the Respondents in each action: GD Sheahan Solicitor for the Respondents in each action: Allen Allen & Helmsley Date of Hearing: 1 May 1998 Date of Judgment: 17 June 1998
0