Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte. Ltd.

[2024] SGHC(I) 22 Singapore International Commercial Court 15 July 2024 • SIC/OA 9/2023 ( SIC/SUM 18/2024 ) |SIC/OA 7/2024 • 17 min read

11 cases cited

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	15 July 2024
Judge	Roger Giles
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Ascendant Legal LLC, Wong Partnership LLP, Chew Kei-Jin, Chia Shi Mei, Daniel Liu Zhao Xiang, Lee Chia Ming, Clare, T Abirami

Source: [2024] SGHC(I) 22, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 15 July 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Enforcement

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Roger Giles Delivered

Counsel (7)

Ascendant Legal LLC Firm Wong Partnership LLP Firm Chew Kei-Jin Counsel Defendant Chia Shi Mei Counsel Claimant Daniel Liu Zhao Xiang Counsel Claimant Lee Chia Ming, Clare Counsel Defendant T Abirami Counsel Claimant

Parties (2)

Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd Defendant Renault SAS Claimant

Case Significance

Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd and another matter [2024] SGHC(I) 22 was a grounds of decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court delivered by Roger Giles IJ on 15 July 2024, in Originating Application No 9 of 2023 (Summons No 18 of 2024) and Originating Application No 7 of 2024, heard on 19 June 2024. In a claim under a guarantee, Renault SAS ("Renault") had obtained judgment against Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd ("LEG") for EUR 5,250,025.61 and interest. LEG appealed against the decision and applied, in separate applications, for a stay of enforcement of the judgment and for an injunction restraining Renault from presenting a winding-up application against it founded on the judgment, both until the disposal of the appeal.

The applications were heard together, with decisions announced at the conclusion of the hearing and full reasons to follow. Roger Giles IJ indicated that a stay order would be made on condition of payment into court of the judgment sum and interest to 31 July 2024, and that, if it remained a live issue, a restraining order would be made. The restraining order was announced on the indication that, despite the judgment, Renault's claim remained a bona fide disputed debt and a winding-up application founded on it would be an abuse of process. Renault was represented by Wong Partnership LLP and LEG by Ascendant Legal LLC.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

15 July 2024

Case summary

Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd and another matter [2024] SGHC(I) 22

Singapore International Commercial Court – Originating Application No 9 of 2023 (Summons No 18 of 2024) and Originating Application No 7 of 2024

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (delivered by Roger Giles IJ):

Outcome: The Singapore International Commercial Court (the “SICC”) granted a stay of enforcement of a judgment, on condition that the defendant pay into court the judgment sum and interest.

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• The power to stay enforcement pending an appeal was preferably found under O 21 r 6(1) of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (the “SICC Rules”), rather than the general power to stay enforcement in O 24 r 2(1) of the SICC Rules: at [13].

Background

1 On 14 February 2024, Renault SAS (“Renault”) obtained judgment against Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd (“LEG”) for €5,250,025.61 plus interest (see Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd and another matter [2004] SGHC(I) 6 (the “Judgment”)).

2 On 19 February 2024, Renault’s solicitors served on LEG a statutory demand pursuant to the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed), on the basis of the Judgment debt.

3 On 17 April 2024, LEG applied for (a) a stay of execution of the Judgment pending its appeal of the decision and (b) an injunction to restrain Renault from presenting a winding-up application on the basis of the statutory demand, pending the appeal. In respect of the stay order, LEG argued that the court’s power to grant the order was derived from the general power to grant a stay under O 24 r 2(1) of the SICC Rules, and accordingly it did not have to show a special case to obtain a stay of enforcement as referred to in O 22 r 13(1) of the SICC Rules.

Decision of the court

4 The court had the power to grant a stay of enforcement pending an appeal under O 21 r 6(1) of the SICC Rules. This was a separate power from the general power to stay enforcement under O 24 r 2(1) of the SICC Rules: at [13].

5 Special circumstances had to be shown in order for the court to exercise the power under O 21 r 6(1). One such circumstance was where a successful appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted. LEG’s arguments failed to show special circumstances in this regard: at [18]–[24].

6 First, LEG argued that being a holding company, a sale of shares in its subsidiaries pursuant to an enforcement order could not be unwound and the shares recovered if the appeal was successful. However, as LEG had not adduced sufficient evidence as to its financial position or assets in Singapore, LEG could not prove that enforcement would inevitably lead to a sale of shares in its subsidiaries, or that a sale of shares in its subsidiaries would have a sufficient impact on LEG’s shareholdings or its assets generally: at [22].

7 Second, LEG argued that it would be inconvenient or expensive to seek recovery of the Judgment sum from Renault should its appeal succeed, as Renault was a foreign entity and had demonstrated a pattern of refusing or delaying the payment of costs and deposits. However, a judgment creditor being a foreign entity did not in itself constitute special circumstances. Further, Renault’s conduct in refusing or delaying the payment of costs had justifiable explanations: at [20], [23].

8 Nonetheless, while special circumstances were not shown, Renault’s submissions indicated that it was agreeable to a stay on condition that LEG pay into court the judgment sum with interest, pending the disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, an order for a conditional stay of enforcement was granted: at [25].

9 Having granted the order for a conditional stay, it became unnecessary to decide on the issue of the injunction. Renault’s solicitor had tentatively expressed during the hearing that he did not think Renault would want to pursue a winding up on the basis of the statutory demand if a conditional stay was ordered. Renault subsequently confirmed this position after the hearing: at [10].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. 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 judgment.

What was the judgment sum in Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC(I) 22?

Renault SAS obtained judgment against Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd for EUR 5,250,025.61 and interest under a guarantee claim. Liberty Engineering appealed and applied for a stay of enforcement and an injunction restraining a winding-up application, decided by Roger Giles IJ on 15 July 2024.

What did the Singapore International Commercial Court order in Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group ([2024] SGHC(I) 22)?

Roger Giles IJ ordered a stay of enforcement conditional on payment into court of the judgment sum and interest by 31 July 2024, and indicated a restraining order would be made because Renault's claim remained a bona fide disputed debt and any winding-up application would be an abuse of process.