In Re: Kirkham International Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 19, the Singapore High Court considered the issue of whether it has the power to retrospectively authorise the appointment of a solicitor by a liquidator. Here, the Applicant liquidator sought to appoint solicitors to assist him in his duties, and asked the Court for such appointment to take effect retrospectively because he had not sought the Court’s authorisation when initially appointing the solicitors.
The requirement for a liquidator to obtain the authorisation of the Court or the Committee of Inspection (“COI“) before appointing a solicitor is provided for by section 144(1)(f) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA“). In this decision, the Court set out the main factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to authorise the appointment of a solicitor, further providing that the threshold for authorisation is not a high one. Applying these principles to the present case, the Court was of the view that the Applicant’s appointment of solicitors should be authorised.
The Court held that it has no power to retrospectively authorise the appointment of a solicitor, finding that the Applicant should have obtained authorisation from the Court or the COI before he appointed solicitors. For the purposes of section 144(1) of the IRDA, the Applicant’s appointment of solicitors was therefore only be deemed to have been authorised from the date of the resulting order in the present application.
For more information, click here to read the full Legal Update.
