Tan & Au LLP and another v Goh Teh Lee

Goh Teh Lee was made a bankrupt on 23 August 2021, with the Official Assignee as trustee. In February 2022 the Official Assignee set his monthly contribution at $480 and his target contribution at $24,960, payable over 52 months from March 2022. His application to reduce those sums in HC/SUM 926/2022 was dismissed. In August 2023 he wrote to the Official Assignee about his lack of income and his medical conditions, including impaired vision, and on 2 October 2023 the Official Assignee issued a certificate under s 86D(1) of the Bankruptcy Act reducing the monthly contribution to $100 and the target contribution to $5,200.

The Official Assignee then found that the target figure was wrongly calculated, because a reduction under s 86D operates only from the date of the certificate. On 12 October 2023 it issued a new certificate putting the target at $12,040 and told Mr Goh to disregard the first. At the first hearing the Official Assignee accepted that the second certificate also contained calculation errors. Mr Goh applied in HC/SUM 3381/2024, filed on 15 November 2024, to reduce his contributions to $20 a month and $1,040 overall. A separate application by the Official Assignee to correct its certificates was later withdrawn.

1. Whether the Official Assignee could issue a fresh certificate replacing an earlier one issued under s 86D(1).
2. Whether the application was out of time and, if so, whether time should be extended.
3. What standard of review applies when the court reviews a decision under s 86D(1).
4. Whether the 2 October 2023 certificate should be varied.

A further certificate under s 86D(1) may be issued only on a new application by the bankrupt, on new circumstances meeting a condition in s 86D(2), and only to reduce the earlier figures. None of that applied, and the second certificate increased the target, so it was invalid. The proper route for correcting a mistake was an application to court under s 31(1A).

The application, treated as one under s 86E(1), had to be brought within 21 days and was filed long out of time even on the latest date he knew of the second certificate. His reasons failed: the Official Assignee owed no duty to tell him of the deadline and had pointed him to legal aid, and his eyesight did not stop him writing to it repeatedly. Even so, the court extended time because the application had merit and the Official Assignee accepted both certificates were wrong.

Following Mirmohammadali Hadian v Ambika d/o Ramachandran (Official Assignee, non-party) [2023] 5 SLR 1153, the perversity standard applies. Mr Goh's argument that there could be only one monthly rate failed, since s 86D(3) and s 86D(4) make reductions prospective, and his complaints about the officers' conduct were without basis.

The Official Assignee's policy of never setting a contribution below $100 fettered its discretion, as it was applied whatever the bankrupt's circumstances. It accepted that his expected income was below the allowed deductions. Given his chronic illnesses, his age of 66 in October 2023, and the unlikelihood of his finding work, a $100 contribution was perverse. A small CPF payout meant he could still pay a reduced sum.

The High Court allowed Mr Goh's application, held the 12 October 2023 certificate invalid, extended time, and varied the 2 October 2023 certificate under s 86E(4) by reducing the monthly contribution to $50 from October 2023, so that the target contribution became $10,770.