LEE YIH KANG v HSU SHIH HSUN
9 cases cited
(7 SG, 2 foreign)
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (8)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
In Lee Yih Kang v Hsu Shih Hsun [2026] SGHC(A) 9, decided on 1 April 2026, the Appellate Division of the High Court (Justices of Appeal Woo Bih Li, Debbie Ong Siew Ling, and See Kee Oon) dismissed Lee Yih Kang's appeal against a statutory demand of A$1,507,276.71 served on 26 March 2025. The demand arose from Lee's guarantee, under a deed dated 15 February 2025, of a debt owed by Infinity Capital Group Limited to Hsu Shih Hsun. Lee argued duress and invalid execution of the deed, but the court found he had failed to raise triable issues on either ground, affirming the judge below and dismissing the appeal with costs fixed at S$32,000 inclusive of disbursements.
Summary
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
1 April 2026
Case summary
Lee Yih Kang v Hsu Shih Hsun [2026] SGHC(A) 9
Appellate Division of the High Court – Civil Appeal No 77 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (delivered by Justice Woo Bih Li):
Outcome: The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal against the decision upholding a statutory demand for A$1,507,276.71, finding no triable issues on the appellant’s defence of duress or claim of invalid execution of a deed of guarantee (“Deed”).
Pertinent and significant points of the judgment
• The Appellate Division applied the established test for setting aside a statutory demand under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Personal Insolvency Rules) 2020: at [11]–[12].
• The appellant’s deliberate non-disclosure of evidence undermined the credibility of his defence of duress: at [32]–[36].
• The appellant’s argument that the Deed had not been properly executed was without basis: at [51]–[54].
1 This was an appeal against the decision below dismissing the appellant (“Lee”)’s application to set aside a statutory demand for A$1,507,276.71. The central issue was whether Lee had raised triable issues in relation to his defence of duress and allegation of invalid execution of the Deed: at [1].
Background to the appeal
2 The respondent (“Hsu”) obtained Hong Kong court decisions in 2021 against Infinity Capital Group Limited (“Infinity”) ordering payment of A$500,000, interest and costs. When Infinity failed to pay, Lee signed the Deed on 15 February 2025 guaranteeing payment to Hsu of A$1.5 million in instalments: at [1], [4]–[5].
3 Lee failed to make the first instalment payment of A$100,000 by 17 February 2025. Under the Deed, the entire sum became due upon default. Hsu’s lawyers served a statutory demand on Lee on 26 March 2025 for A$1,507,276.71: at [5]–[6].
4 Lee filed an application to set aside the statutory demand, which was dismissed by an Assistant Registrar on 24 June 2025. Lee’s subsequent appeal to the General Division was dismissed on 11 August 2025. Lee then filed the present appeal to the Appellate Division: at [7]–[9].
The material facts
5 Lee argued that he signed the Deed under duress due to Hsu’s threats to post damaging material about Jonathan Cheng (Infinity’s sole director) on social media platforms. Between 26 December 2024 and 15 February 2025, Hsu sent videos and messages accusing Jonathan of fraud and misconduct: at [14].
6 However, it was Lee who first suggested providing a guarantee on 19 January 2025. Hsu did not ask Lee to provide a personal guarantee for Infinity’s debt: at [24].
The court’s decision
7 The Appellate Division held that Lee failed to establish triable issues on both defences. The court dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $32,000: at [2] and [18].
8 As regards Lee’s defence of duress, the court held that no illegitimate pressure was exerted by Hsu. Crucially, Hsu twice cautioned Lee to consider carefully before committing to the guarantee, which was inconsistent with any exercise of illegitimate pressure: at [26]–[27].
9 Lee signed the Deed eight days after receiving the draft deed and was informed that he could seek independent legal advice before signing it. He signed and returned the engrossed Deed on the same day it was sent to him: at [30].
10 After signing the Deed, Lee sought extensions of time to pay rather than alleging duress. He only raised the duress defence after the statutory demand was served on him: at [31] and [47].
11 Lee had deliberately omitted various messages that would defeat his defence of duress. This non-disclosure was deliberate because the omitted evidence would show there was no illegitimate pressure and compulsion of his will: at [35].
12 The court distinguished the case from Zhang Jinhua v Yip Zhao Lin [2024] 5 SLR 1046 (“Zhang Jinhua”), noting the facts were very different. Unlike in Zhang Jinhua, there was no threat or demand by Hsu against Lee, and Hsu had cautioned Lee against providing the guarantee: at [37] and [47].
13 As regards Lee’s argument that the Deed was not validly executed, there is no requirement at law for witnesses to attest to the signing of a contract to render it valid and enforceable, save in specific statutorily provided circumstances. Nothing on the face of the Deed mandated witness attestation for validity: at [53].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.
What did the Appellate Division decide in Lee Yih Kang v Hsu Shih Hsun regarding a statutory demand for A$1.5 million?
In Lee Yih Kang v Hsu Shih Hsun [2026] SGHC(A) 9, Justices Woo Bih Li, Debbie Ong Siew Ling, and See Kee Oon dismissed Lee's appeal against a statutory demand of A$1,507,276.71, holding he raised no triable issues on duress or invalid execution of his guarantee deed dated 15 February 2025, awarding costs of S$32,000.
Cases Cited (9)
SG (2)
[2014] SGHC 245 [2015] SGHC 1
SLR (5)
[2009] 2 SLR(R) 240 [2013] 2 SLR 801 [2014] 2 SLR 446 [2020] 2 SLR 1151 [2024] 5 SLR 1046
UK (2)
[1980] AC 614 [1983] 1 AC 366
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC(A) 9)