RECENT
NOTABLE CASE
Schemes of Arrangement v Common Law Actions
In late November 2011, Tito and Seng Giap appeared as Counsel before
the Court of Appeal on behalf of a long-standing client of the firm,
on a question of law involving the continued viability or otherwise
of a common law claim (against our client) for personal injuries
when our client had undergone and completed a Scheme of Arrangement
pursuant to Section 210 of the Companies Act.
The Appeals in question were lodged by our client, after the said
question of law was not answered in our client’s favour by
the High Court.
Brief facts, insofar as material, are inter alia as follows:-
• The Respondents (i.e. the injury victims) sustained injuries
in different industrial accidents in August 2007 and February 2008
respectively;
• Both Respondents shortly after their respective accidents
also commenced workmen’s compensation claims against our client
via the Ministry of Manpower;
• In August 2008, our client embarked on its Scheme of Arrangement
after the same had been approved by the requisite majority of creditors
as well as the High Court (n.b. our offices were not involved in
the drafting and operation of the Scheme);
• The Scheme was intended to compromise all creditors’
claims except for (insofar as is material for the current case)
claimants who had workmen’s compensation accrued due to them
– these would be paid in full and with priority;
• The Scheme was successfully completed and terminated in
May 2009;
• However, both Respondents did not “participate”
in the Scheme. In other words, they did not cast their vote for
approval of the Scheme, nor did they file any Proof of Debt under
the Scheme;
• Both Respondents subsequently withdrew their respective
workmen’s compensation claims and commenced the common law
actions against our client in August 2009 and March 2010 respectively;
• Our client then applied for a summary determination of these
2 claims on the aforementioned question of law and which was answered
in the negative by the High Court in April 2011, thus leading to
the present Appeal.
Both at first instance and upon appeal, the bastions of our client’s
case revolved around the following points:-
• Schemes of Arrangements must have finality and certainty
to them, for otherwise would undermine the whole intention, purpose
and policy behind such Schemes;
• It thus follows that any creditor of our client who did
not lodge his common law claims as prescribed by the terms of the
Scheme would have such claims entirely extinguished and even so
after successful completion of the Scheme;
• However, if the Respondents had maintained their workmen’s
compensation claims, according to the explicit terms of the Scheme,
any payment due to them thereunder would not be within the ambit
of the Scheme: the Respondents would instead be paid their workmen’s
compensation claims in full – this liability cannot be avoided
by our client.
The Respondents’ positions can be briefly summarised inter
alia as follows:-
• First, the Respondents were not Creditors under the Scheme
as their claims against our client were covered by a policy of insurance
and therefore the legislative policy pertaining to Schemes of Arrangement
was not affected should their common law claims be allowed to stand;
• Second, the terms of the Scheme do not prevent any common
law claims from being commenced or sustained against our client,
in particular claims for unliquidated damages arising in tort;
• Third, local case law clearly establishes that workmen’s
compensation claims do not prejudice any common law claims;
• Fourth, the Scheme does not have such effects following
its completion so as to completely preclude or extinguish the Respondents’
common law claims;
• Fifth, the Proof of Debt form attached to the Scheme, which
Creditors are to fill up in order for their claims to be considered,
was formatted in such a manner which did not cater for unliquidated
claims such as the Respondents’.
All these arguments by the Respondents were rejected by the Court
of Appeal (Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and VK Rajah JJA presiding).
The Court of Appeal had also enquired whether, in the event our
client’s appeal was allowed, the Respondents would still have
recourse to their prior workmen’s compensation claims.
This question we answered in the affirmative, supported by written
evidence originating from the Ministry of Manpower.
In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal allowed our client’s
appeal with the usual consequential orders. The net effect, in our
opinion, would be that the Respondents’ common law claims
against our client are accordingly dismissed. |
|
|
JOBS
& INTERNSHIPS
Only shortlisted candidates will be
contacted.
We thank all applicants for their interest in our firm. Due to the
high number of applications we receive, we regret that we are only
able to reply to shortlisted applicants. [Careers
... ]
USEFUL
LINKS
The
Supreme Court
The
Subordinate Courts
The
Attorney-General's Chambers
The
Ministry of Law
Singapore
International Arbitration Centre
Singapore
Mediation Centre
Accounting
and Corporate Regulatory Authority
The
Law Society
Singapore
Academy of Law
Asean
Law Association |