GOH SENG HENG v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE & Anor

Facts

Goh Seng Heng became bankrupt on his own application in HC/B 940/2020, after being found liable for misrepresentation to purchasers of shares in his company, Aesthetics Medical Partners Pte Ltd, in two suits brought by Liberty Sky Investments Ltd and Wang Xiaopu. In a third suit against his family, the court found he had conveyed assets with intent to defraud creditors. The Official Assignee administered his estate. It admitted proofs of debt from Liberty Sky, Wang and his former solicitors, LVM Law Chambers LLC, and an officer, Mr Benjamin Yim, gave Wang's counsel an excerpt of a statement in which Goh explained what had happened to $18m in a Guangzhou bank account. That excerpt was later used in committal proceedings in which he was found in contempt.

Acting in person, Goh filed six originating applications in the General Division of the High Court: OA 38 and OA 67 challenging refusals of sanction to pursue matters relating to two of the suits; OA 69 seeking leave to sue the Official Assignee and Mr Yim; OA 111 seeking a declaration that the bankruptcy order was void; OA 114 seeking to quash the admission of the three debts; and OA 115 challenging the disclosure of the excerpt.

Issues

1. Whether the Official Assignee's sanction was needed to bring the applications
2. Whether the Official Assignee's decisions are susceptible to judicial review
3. Whether statutory review under the Bankruptcy Act and annulment under s 123 were complete alternative remedies that excluded judicial review
4. Whether the applicant showed an arguable case of reasonable suspicion for OA 111, OA 114 and OA 115

Holding

The High Court dismissed all six applications and said it would hear the parties on costs, including the costs ordered against the applicant at the registrar's case conference on 2 October 2025.

Reasoning

The court allowed the self-represented applicant to proceed on the positions he took at the hearing. It accepted the respondents' position that a bankrupt needs no sanction to challenge the bankruptcy order or the Official Assignee's own acts, so sanction was needed only for OA 38 and OA 67. OA 69 sought a remedy the court had no power to grant. In OA 38 and OA 67 the applicant now wanted something different from what the Official Assignee had refused: to be retried as a defendant to the suit against his family, and an extension of time to provide security for his abandoned appeal. He had never asked for sanction for either.

The Official Assignee is a statutory office with a public element, so its decisions are in principle open to judicial review. But judicial review is a last resort, and O 24 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 requires other remedies to be exhausted first. Section 31 of the Bankruptcy Act gives the bankrupt standing to have any act or decision of the Official Assignee confirmed, reversed or modified, with an appeal route, and its scope is wider than judicial review. Section 123 allows annulment of a bankruptcy order, a route the applicant had started and withdrawn. These complete alternatives made OA 111, OA 114 and OA 115 inappropriate.

For completeness, the court found no arguable case. A bankruptcy order needs only a debt of at least $10,000, so lack of a share valuation did not void it. The debts were not shown to be wrongly admitted on what was known at the time; a 2025 valuation could not show an earlier error, Wang's debt was a fixed sum, and legal fees need not be taxed before admission. Mr Yim's disclosure was a proper discharge of his duty as an officer of the court in the public interest.

From the judgment