SINGAPORE – After clashing with his court-appointed private trustee, a bankrupt man asked the High Court to have the trustee removed, citing what he described as an “irreparable breakdown” in their working relationship.
But the court dismissed Alvin See Chuen Lim’s application, ruling that he has no legal standing to seek the trustee’s removal.
It added that, even if he did, none of the complaints he raised came close to meeting the high legal threshold for the court to interfere with a trustee’s decisions.
In a judgment released on July 1, Assistant Registrar Samuel Chan also explained the role of private trustees in Singapore’s bankruptcy system and set out when bankrupts can ask the court to review the trustees’ actions.
Private trustees in bankruptcy are licensed insolvency practitioners appointed by the court to administer a bankrupt’s estate. They take control of the bankrupt’s assets, oversee repayments to creditors and supervise the bankrupt’s conduct, including deciding whether he can travel overseas.
The assistant registrar noted that Singapore has in recent years shifted towards a system where most bankruptcy cases are administered by private trustees instead of the Official Assignee, a court officer appointed by the Law Minister.
But the role of a trustee is often contentious.
“The management of bankrupts’ estates by these private trustees in bankruptcy involves an inherently adversarial process,” Chan wrote. “On the one hand, a bankrupt will want, among other things, minimal monthly or annual pay-outs. On the other hand, creditors will be looking to maximise recovery of the debts owed to them.”
He noted: “The private trustee will therefore need to balance the interests of both the bankrupt and his creditors, so as to ensure a fair and judicious outcome for both parties in the administration of the estate.”
See, who applied to have himself declared bankrupt in October 2025, had asked that licensed insolvency practitioner Kanthosamy Rajendran be appointed as the trustee of his bankruptcy estate. The court made the bankruptcy order the following month.
Relations between the two deteriorated.
In January, See challenged the trustee’s refusal to allow him to travel to Vietnam to visit his wife’s family. That application was withdrawn after permission was eventually granted.
In the same month, he separately asked the court to reduce the monthly and target contributions set by the trustee, but that application was also dismissed.
In March, See returned to court seeking the trustee’s removal altogether, making three complaints.
First, he said the trustee failed to advise him after he received a Land Transport Authority (LTA) notice regarding outstanding road tax on a vehicle. Second, he argued that the trustee had unreasonably and inconsistently refused his requests to travel overseas. Third, he pointed to an incident where the trustee mistakenly sent him another bankrupt person’s correspondence.
Taken together, he argued that there had been an “irreparable breakdown” in their working relationship and that the trustee should be replaced.
His case was heard in April and June, with both See and Kanthosamy representing themselves in court.
On July 1, the court rejected See’s application, finding that See lacked the legal standing to bring the application.
The assistant registrar held that a bankrupt does not have an unrestricted right to challenge every decision made by a trustee.
Allowing a bankrupt to challenge every action or decision made by a bankruptcy trustee would defeat the purpose of the law, which is to make bankruptcy cases faster and cheaper to administer, he noted.
To have the legal grounds to challenge a private trustee, a bankrupt must generally show that there is, or is likely to be, a surplus remaining after all creditors have been paid before he can demonstrate a legitimate interest in the administration of his estate.
Alternatively, the complaint must directly affect a right or interest arising specifically from the bankruptcy process.
In See’s case, there was no evidence that his estate would produce a surplus after his debts were paid, while the assistant registrar found that his three complaints did not directly affect any bankruptcy-related rights.
His travel requests had already been approved. The dispute over the LTA notice did not involve any statutory duty the trustee owes to See, while the mistaken disclosure of another bankrupt’s document did not affect See’s own rights.
Even if See had the necessary standing, the court said it would still have dismissed his application because the trustee’s conduct did not cross the legal bar needed for the court to intervene.
Chan said the courts would intervene where a trustee has acted in bad faith or fraudulently. “The threshold to be met… is a high one,” he said.
On the LTA notice, the trustee had explained that he believed that the matter potentially involved criminal proceedings, which fell outside his duty to advise. Any road tax debt could instead be dealt with through the bankruptcy process if the LTA later filed a proof of debt.
The assistant registrar found that explanation reasonable.
The court also rejected See’s complaints over his rejected travel requests.
Although the trustee’s initial refusal to let See travel to Vietnam “appears, on its face, to be unduly harsh”, it was not unreasonable.
At the time, the trustee had concerns that See might have undisclosed income or overseas assets because of inconsistencies in his declared earnings.
See declared his annual income at $100,000 for 2024, although his monthly income was listed at around $3,200. The trustee later approved the travel after receiving further documents.
The mistaken disclosure of another bankrupt’s correspondence likewise did not warrant intervention.
The trustee admitted sending the document to See by mistake and deleted the message after realising the error.
See had also alleged that the trustee threatened during a phone call to stop acting for him if he continued asking questions.
The trustee denied making the threat.
The assistant registrar said that even if such a remark had been made, it appeared to have been “a one-off statement” during what seemed to be “a heated argument” and did not justify the court stepping in.
Summing up, Chan accepted that there has been “a souring of the relationship” between the two.
But, he added, “the court will not disturb a private trustee’s decision simply because (See) disagrees with it or because (See) dislikes interacting with the private trustee”.
He concluded there was “no basis” for the court to intervene, “much less to order the removal” of the trustee.
