Chai Chee Keng trading as Keng & Keong Construction v Imperial Construction (Private) Limited

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Leslie Chew
• Judgment Date: 19 February 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGDC 55
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 27 February 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGDC 55
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher Yap (Christopher Yap & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Chandran/S. K. Kumar (S. K. Kumar & Associates)
• Year: 2009

19 February 2009

District Judge Leslie Chew:

Background

1. This was an appeal by the Defendants against the decision of the Deputy Registrar granting the Plaintiffs summary judgment. I heard the Registrar’s Appeal 223/2008/A on 21 January 2009. I set aside the Deputy Registrar’s decision and granted the Defendants unconditional leave to defend. The Plaintiffs have since appealed to the High Court. I now give the reasons for my decision.

2. In this action the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants as drawers of 6 cheques totalling in value, the sum of $114,425.25. Based on this claim the Plaintiffs applied for summary judgment on the basis that these cheques, the details of which appear in the Writ of Summons, were dishonoured on presentation. The Plaintiffs therefore relied on this dishonour of the cheques drawn by the Defendants as clear basis that they have no defence thereby entitling the Plaintiffs to summary judgment. It should be noted that by the time the matter came before me, the amount claimed had been reduced to $95,461, the Defendants having made payment of the sum of $18,964.22.

3. The Defendants position may be stated briefly as follows:

a. The balance amount claimed in this summary judgment application by the Plaintiffs relate to 3 cheques all of which were in reality postdated by the Defendants to dates shown below:

(i) Cheque No. 706305 postdated 25 February 2008 - $18,429.97

(ii) Cheque No. 726354 postdated 5 April 2008 - $32,770.76

(iii) Cheque No. 642295 postdated 10 May 2008 - $44,260.28

b. It is not in dispute that these postdated cheques were presented by the Plaintiffs for payment on 10 May 2008.

c. Prior to the date of presentation for payment by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants had already notified the Plaintiffs on 9 May 2008 that the Defendants had stopped payment on the above cheques because they had found discrepancies in the sums claimed made by the Plaintiffs in respect of work done in connection with the construction projects in which the Plaintiffs were the sub-contractors to the Defendants.

d. In the course of their relationship, by the Plaintiffs’ own admission, the Defendants would from time to time make payments by issuing postdated cheques. Moreover, from time to time, the Plaintiffs would at the request of the Defendants withhold presentation of these cheques for payment. On occasion, the Defendants would also replace such cheques with fresh ones. This, the Defendants say was because two of these cheques, namely cheque nos. 726354 and 642295 were issued by the Defendants subject to the amounts claimed being certified after measurement. As to cheque no. 706305, the Defendants had already made payment for the sum claimed – see exhibit pages 18 and 19 and paragraph 8 of the affidavit of Lee Chee Hing filed on 6 January 2009.

e. Although the Plaintiffs’ claim is based on the dishonour of the cheques nevertheless if the Defendants can show that there has been a failure of consideration or the lack of consideration with respect to these cheques, they would have a defence.

f. The Defendants affidavit evidence show that there are discrepancies in the claims of the Plaintiffs and for which they claim payment against the cheques in question. Indeed, after certification by their Quantity Surveyor all sums due to the...