Darryl Goon Siew Chye JCA:

Introduction

[1] There was one core issue that arose in this appeal. It was in our view an important issue and one that has significant consequences particularly in the enforcement of judgment debts.

[2] The issue was this: whether the liability of judgment debtors, if not expressed to be joint and several in a judgment or order, is 'joint' with a consequence that each judgment debtor is only liable for an equal fraction of the judgment debt.

[3] This is the judgment of the court.

Background

[4] The factual matrix from which this issue arose was uncomplicated.

[5] Five individuals had presented Petition Pemula No.: D-NCC-26-21/2009 ('Petition 26') against fourteen respondents.

[6] The respondent was one among the five petitioners in Petition 26 while the appellant was one of the fourteen respondents.

[7] Petition 26 was presented upon allegations of oppression pursuant to s 181 of the former Companies Act of 1965. It was heard and it failed. Consequently, on 28th July 2010, Petition 26 was dismissed with judgment entered in favour of the respondents coupled with an order for costs in their favour the operative part of which read as follows:

'PENGHAKIMAN

...