Abani Trading Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas and another appeal
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | George Wei JC |
Judgment Date | 06 June 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] SGHC 111 |
Citation | [2014] SGHC 111 |
Date | 06 June 2014 |
Hearing Date | 19 December 2013 |
Subject Matter | Letters of Credit,Pleadings,Banking,Civil Procedure,Costs |
Defendant Counsel | Toh Kian Sing SC and Jonathan Wong (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Sureshan s/o T Kulasingam (Sureshan LLC) |
Published date | 14 July 2014 |
Docket Number | District Court Appeal Nos 19 and 24 of 2013 |
There are two appeals which arise from the learned District Judge’s (“the DJ’s”) decision in District Court Suit No 403 of 2011. The first appeal, District Court Appeal No 19 of 2013 (“DCA 19/2013”), is filed by the plaintiff of the original action, Abani Trading Pte Ltd (“Abani”). This appeal is on the issue of whether the defendant, BNP Paribas (“BNP”), breached its duty or the terms of the letter of credit, and failed to exercise due care in examining the relevant documentation that was presented to it. The second appeal, District Court Appeal No 24 of 2013 (“DCA 24/2013”), is filed by BNP against the DJ’s decision to award costs in favour of BNP on a
The plaintiff, Abani, is a trading company based in Singapore which carries on the business of general wholesale trade, including the importation and exportation of goods. The defendant, BNP, is a bank operating in Singapore.
The letter of credit in question was obtained in connection with the underlying sale of a consignment of metal bars from Metal Market Dis Ticaret Ltd Sti (“Metal Market”) to Abani. In this respect, Abani had apparently bought the consignment of metal bars for the purpose of selling it to another party named Codiscomad.1 One of the terms of the agreement with Codiscomad required the goods in question to be shipped between November and December 2008.2
On 9 December 2008, Abani made the application to BNP for a letter of credit to be issued in favour of Metal Market as the named beneficiary.3 The letter of credit in the amount of US$80,665 was issued in favour of Metal Market the next day on 10 December 2008. The terms of the letter of credit provided, amongst others, that the applicable rules were the “UCP Latest Version” and that the latest date of shipment was 30 December 2008.4 The latter condition was probably included so as to ensure that Abani could fulfil its contractual obligations to Codiscomad. For the purposes of this appeal, the material clauses of the letter of credit are reproduced as follows:5
UCP LATEST VERSION
30-Dec-2008
...
+ ORIGINAL FULL SET OF CLEAN ON BOARD BILL OF LADING ISSUED BY CARRIER OR AGENT
(FORWARDER BL NOT ACCEPTABLE.) ...
Given that the date of issuance was 9 December 2008, with reference to field 40E, the letter of credit was governed by the provisions of the
Subsequently, a bill of lading dated 30 December 2008 was issued by Karetta Uluslararasi Tasimacilik Ve Dis Tic Ltd Sti (“Caretta”).6 The bill of lading and other relevant documents were negotiated through Fortis Bank, which then sought reimbursement from BNP. On 12 January 2009, BNP received the bill of lading and other relevant documents from Fortis Bank.
After an exchange of emails and an alleged telephone call between BNP and Abani (both parties dispute what actually transpired during the telephone conversation), BNP eventually debited Abani’s account on 16 January 2009. It will be recalled that the agreement with Codiscomad required the goods to be shipped latest by December 2008. Whilst the bill of lading which had been negotiated was dated 30 December 2008, it appears that another bill of lading was issued later, which indicated that the shipping date was 2 January 2009.7 As a result, Codiscomad complained that Abani was in breach of its contractual obligations due to the late shipment. Given that the market price of the goods in question had fallen over the relevant time period, Abani asserted that it had no choice but to settle Codiscomad’s claim by deducting a sum of US$64,431.53 from the original sale price. Abani then brought the action against BNP to recover the sum of US$64,431.53, or alternatively, damages on the basis that BNP had breached its duty or the terms of the letter of credit and had failed to exercise due care in examining the relevant documentation before making payment.
The decision below After a two-day hearing that took place on 22 and 23 January 2013, the DJ dismissed Abani’s claim (see
After dismissing Abani’s claim on 5 June 2013, the DJ further directed both parties to tender written submissions on the issue of whether costs in favour of BNP should be taxed on a standard or an indemnity basis. This was because BNP had argued that it was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis, as provided for by cl 11.4 of BNP’s standard terms and conditions (“the STC”),9 which governed BNP’s grant of credit facilities to Abani. After considering the submissions of both parties, on 24 June 2013, the DJ ordered for costs in favour of BNP to be taxed on a standard basis. Whilst the DJ agreed with BNP that the scope of cl 11.4 of the STC was wide enough to cover claims brought by Abani against BNP, he was of the view that BNP’s failure to include its claim for indemnity costs in its pleadings was fatal given that the claim was based on a contractual provision.
The issues The core issues that are raised in DCA 19/2013 are as follows:
The core issues that are raised in DCA 24/2013 are as follows:
There is no dispute that the letter of credit in question is governed by the UCP 600. As noted above, the documents required for payment under the letter of credit included a full set of clean on board bill of lading issued by
Abani’s claim against BNP was based on two broad grounds. First, Abani alleged that the bill of lading presented for negotiation was a
In determining whether the bill of lading presented was a conforming document, the DJ held that a relevant consideration was whether BNP was obliged to act on any information supplied by the applicant for the letter of credit (
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD vs KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD . KHEE SAN BERHAD
...account matters or circumstances that are extraneous to the commercial documents (Abani Trading Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas and another appeal [2014] SGHC 111). Page 35 of 53 I] THE IMPUGNED BA TRANSACTIONS [107] Apart from the issue of the Quincecare duty, most of the issues raised by the Defend......
-
Wartsila Singapore Pte Ltd v Lau Yew Choong and another suit
...Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd [2003] 1 SLR(R) 712 at [39]; Abani Trading Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas and another appeal [2014] 3 SLR 909 at [86]). Having reached the conclusion that the 2008 GTC (cl 6 in particular) were not incorporated, I do not propose to comment on the is......
-
OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another v Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others
...Agricole (Suisse) SA (Yeh Mao-Yuan, third party) [2015] 4 SLR 1019 at [29]; Abani Trading Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas and another appeal [2014] 3 SLR 909 at [93]. As I have not heard the parties on costs, I will deal with this together with all costs matters after the delivery of this judgment. F......
-
NSL Oilchem Waste Management Pte Ltd v Prosper Marine Pte Ltd and other suits
...the party seeking indemnity costs relies on the court’s statutory discretion to award costs (e.g. Abani Trading Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas [2014] 3 SLR 909) or directly sues on the basis of its contractual entitlement (e.g. Mansfield v Robinson [1928] 2 KB 353, cited and adopted in United Overse......