Henny Sutanto v Chandra Suwandi (trading as Global Standard Marketing)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 21 September 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGCA 45
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 21 September 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Mun Hooi and Wong Nan Shee (Lee Mun Hooi and Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Quek Mong Hua and Julian Tay (Lee and Lee)
• Subject Matter: Bills of Exchange and Other Negotiable Instruments,Presentation for payment,Whether payee required to present cheques for payment,Whether exceptions to requirement for presentation for payment established,Sections 45, 46(3) and 46(4) Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 1999 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2005] SGCA 45

21 September 2005

Tan Lee Meng J (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The appellant, Mdm Henny Sutanto (“Mdm Henny”), sued the respondent, Mr Chandra Suwandi (“Chandra”), with respect to three cheques signed by the latter’s sister-in-law, Mdm Suriani Tani (“Mdm Tani”), and drawn on the account of the latter’s business, Global Standard Marketing (“Global”). Her claim was dismissed by the trial judge. We dismissed her appeal and now set out the reasons for our decision.

Background

2 Chandra is the sole proprietor of Global, which trades in pagers, handphones and other telecommunications equipment. As Global is a small enterprise, Chandra did not employ any staff. He personally ordered goods that he required and arranged for the same to be collected or delivered by freight forwarders. Chandra travelled extensively. As such, in July 1998, he authorised Mdm Tani, who was in Singapore most of the time, to operate Global’s account with the Bukit Timah branch of the United Overseas Bank (“UOB”) to facilitate the early settlement of bills for goods ordered from suppliers.

3 In due course, Chandra had cause to regret having authorised Mdm Tani to sign cheques on Global’s behalf. Mdm Tani borrowed $670,000.00 from Mdm Henny between October 2001 and June 2003. To repay the loans, Mdm Tani issued to Mdm Henny three cheques drawn on Global’s UOB account. On 26 December 2001, she issued a cheque for $206,000.00. On 26 January 2002, she issued another cheque for $154,500.00 and on 30 January 2002, she issued yet another cheque for $154,500.00.

4 After issuing the three cheques to Mdm Henny, Mdm Tani instructed UOB to stop payment on the cheques. Mdm Henny did not present the three cheques for payment. She claimed that she was told by Mdm Tani that the cheques would be dishonoured if they were presented.

5 In 2003, Mdm Henny instituted legal proceedings against Mdm Tani and Chandra. Her claim against Mdm Tani was for the repayment of the loans that she had extended to the latter. Her claim against Chandra was with respect to the three Global cheques signed by Mdm Tani.

6 On 9 May 2003, Mdm Henny obtained judgment in default of appearance against Mdm Tani. The default judgment was set aside on the ground of irregularity by the trial judge, whose judgment was primarily concerned with Mdm Henny’s claim against Chandra.

The trial judge’s decision

7 The trial judge dismissed Mdm Henny’s claim against Chandra on a number of grounds. One of the grounds was that Mdm Henny did not comply with s 45 of the Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 1999 Rev Ed), which required her to present the cheques for payment. Mdm Henny lodged an appeal against the trial judge’s decision.

The appeal

8 In our view, the appeal against the dismissal of Mdm Henny’s claim...