Lim Siang Heng v Great Eastern Financial Advisers Private Limited

[2026] SGHCR 8 High Court Registrar 26 March 2026 • HC/OSB 88/2025 • 40 min read

14 cases cited (9 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

Insolvency Law — Bankruptcy — Statutory Demand — Setting aside Insolvency Law — Bankruptcy — Liquidated sum — Section 311(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018

Practice Areas

Insolvency Law

Judges (1)

Perry Peh Delivered

Counsel (4)

Shook Lin & Bok LLP Firm Whitefield Law Corporation Firm Leong Kit Weng Counsel Respondent Shanthi Elavarasi Kalamohan Counsel Applicant

Parties (2)

Great Eastern Financial Advisers Pte Ltd Respondent Lim Siang Heng Applicant

Case Significance

Lim Siang Heng v Great Eastern Financial Advisers Pte Ltd [2026] SGHCR 8 is a High Court Registrar judgment delivered by AR Perry Peh on 26 March 2026, concerning an application by former financial advisory representative Lim Siang Heng to set aside a statutory demand of $47,169.63 served on 8 July 2025 by Great Eastern Financial Advisers Pte Ltd (GEFA). The bulk of the debt ($46,795.61) comprised commissions that GEFA had paid to Mr Lim for policies he sold but which GEFA sought to recover after an internal investigation found the policies had been sold in breach of his representative's agreement; the application raised the question of whether the sum constituted a liquidated sum under s 311(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. Mr Lim was terminated by GEFA on 21 February 2024. He was represented by Shanthi Elavarasi Kalamohan of Whitefield Law Corporation; GEFA by Leong Kit Weng of Shook Lin & Bok LLP.

Summary

Lim Siang Heng, a former financial advisory representative with Great Eastern Financial Advisers Pte Ltd, applied to set aside a statutory demand for S$47,169.63, the bulk of which comprised commissions that GEFA sought to claw back following an internal investigation into his alleged "pooling" of insurance policy sales. The central issue was whether the clawed-back commissions constituted a "liquidated sum" under s 311(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, given that their calculation depended on findings from GEFA's internal investigation rather than a contractual formula. The court set aside the statutory demand, finding the debts were not liquidated sums because no arithmetic formula in the representative's agreement could determine the amounts without reference to extrinsic investigative conclusions.

What was decided about the statutory demand in Lim Siang Heng v Great Eastern Financial Advisers [2026] SGHCR 8?

AR Perry Peh of the High Court determined on 26 March 2026 whether a statutory demand for $47,169.63 — mostly commission clawback following GEFA's internal investigation into policies sold in breach of Lim Siang Heng's representative's agreement — constituted a liquidated sum under s 311(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.

Statutes Cited

Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act

Restructuring and Dissolution Act

UK Insolvency Act

s 267(2)(b)

Cases Cited (14)

SG (3)

[2006] SGHC 139 [2011] SGHC 114 [2015] SGHC 1

SLR (6)

[1998] 3 SLR(R) 599 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 585 [2009] 2 SLR(R) 659 [2013] 2 SLR 801 [2014] 2 SLR 446 [2020] 1 SLR 36

UK (5)

[1901] QB 51 [1989] 1 WLR 271 [1994] 1 WLR 264 [2011] EWCA Civ 1286 [2023] EWCA Civ 1119

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHCR 8)