Henny Sutanto v Suriani Tani (alias Li Yu) and Another

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLai Siu Chiu J
Judgment Date26 April 2005
Neutral Citation[2005] SGHC 82
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Year2005
Published date29 April 2005
Plaintiff CounselLee Mun Hooi and Wong Nan Shee (Lee Mun Hooi and Co)
Defendant CounselQuek Mong Hua and Julian Tay (Lee and Lee)
Subject MatterBills of Exchange and Other Negotiable Instruments,Legal proceedings,Action,Plaintiff lending money to first defendant,First defendant issuing cheques drawn on account of second defendant's sole proprietorship,Whether plaintiff allowed to claim against second defendant as drawer of cheques,Sections 23(1), 27, 29(1), 45(1), 46(3), 46(4) Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 1999 Rev Ed),Credit and Security,Money and moneylenders,Plaintiff receiving cheques for greater sums of money than amount lent out,Whether plaintiff was moneylender under s 3 of Moneylenders Act,Whether plaintiff's claim on cheques unenforceable,Sections 3, 15 Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 1985 Rev Ed)
Citation[2005] SGHC 82

26 April 2005

Lai Siu Chiu J:

The background

1 Henny Sutanto (the plaintiff) sued Suriani Tani (the first defendant) for friendly loans extended between 26 October 2001 and 25 June 2003 totalling $670,000 (“the loans”). The plaintiff’s claim against Chandra Suwandi (the second defendant) in the same suit was as drawer of three cheques (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the three cheques”) for sums totalling $515,000 drawn on the bank account of Global Standard Marketing (“Global”). The first defendant is the sister-in-law of the second defendant, being married to the latter’s elder brother Henry Suwandi (“Henry”). The second defendant is the sole-proprietor of Global which is in the business of general wholesaling (including import and export) and trading in pagers, handphones and other telecommunications apparatus.

2 The plaintiff obtained judgment in default of appearance against the first defendant on 9 May 2003. The trial before me was only on the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant. At the conclusion of the trial, I dismissed the plaintiff’s claim with costs and set aside as irregular the default judgment she had obtained against the first defendant. The plaintiff has appealed against my judgment in Civil Appeal No 15 of 2005.

The pleadings

3 As I have already touched on the plaintiff’s claim in [1], I turn now to the second defendant’s (amended) pleadings. He asserted a number of defences as follows:

(a) Apart from being a cheque signatory, the first defendant was at all material times not an employee, servant and/or agent of Global.

(b) The three cheques were issued by the first defendant without his knowledge, consent, mandate or authority and were for the first defendant’s personal use and not for the business of Global.

(c) There was no consideration provided for the three cheques and the second defendant was consequently not liable thereon.

(d) The plaintiff was not a licensed moneylender under the provisions of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Moneylenders Act”). She had lent the first defendant $500,000 in consideration of being repaid a large sum ($515,000) thereby raising the presumption of moneylending under s 3 of the Moneylenders Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim on the three cheques was unenforceable under s 15 thereof.

(e) The plaintiff could not maintain her claim against him as there had been a subsequent compromise as well as accord and satisfaction, by reason of two agreements.

(f) The plaintiff failed to present the three cheques for payment on their due dates. Consequently, the second defendant was not liable.

4 In her Reply, the plaintiff contended[1] that the three cheques were negotiated by the first defendant as security for part-payment of the loans. The plaintiff added that she could not have known that the first defendant had issued the cheques without the authority of the second defendant.

The plaintiff’s case

5 The plaintiff was the only witness for her case. She apparently comes from an influential family in Medan, Sumatra. She has lived in Singapore since 1991, looking after her four children who are schooling here. In her written testimony, she deposed that she was introduced to the first defendant in Jakarta in 1984, by the plaintiff’s elder sister, Ivy; the first defendant was Ivy’s best friend. The plaintiff was re-acquainted with the first defendant in 1991 in Singapore and they became friends. Their parents knew one another.

6 The plaintiff said she trusted the first defendant and whenever the latter was in financial difficulties and approached her for assistance, the plaintiff obliged. The amounts the plaintiff extended to the first defendant over a space of 20 months (October 2001 to June 2003) eventually ballooned to $670,000, as can be seen from the following breakdown:

Date Amount

1 26.10.2001 $200,000

2 31.10.2001 $150,000

3 26.11.2001 $150,000

4 13.03.2002 $120,000

5 26.04.2002 $ 30,000

6 25.06.2003 $ 20,000

$670,000

7 Questioned on the purpose of the loans, the plaintiff testified the first defendant told her the loans were for business purposes. The plaintiff was unaware (until after her counsel had conducted a search in the Registry of Businesses) that Global was a sole-proprietorship of the second defendant. The plaintiff understood from the first defendant that the latter had to pay her suppliers until she could get her own funds. The second advance made by the plaintiff to the first defendant was supposedly for a tender. The plaintiff understood the first defendant to be involved in the telephones, cables and wiring business and that the latter supplied goods to the Indonesian oil conglomerate, Pertamina.

8 The plaintiff testified she understood from the first defendant that the first defendant, the first defendant’s husband and the second defendant were business partners and that the first defendant had control of financial matters in Global. Questioned by the court why the cheques she issued to the first defendant were in favour of the first defendant and not Global, the plaintiff explained it was at the first defendant’s request − it would be easier for the first defendant to pay her supplier.

9 The plaintiff denied the loans were to cover the first defendant’s gambling losses incurred in casinos on Star Cruise ships. She further denied her husband operated a casino in Batam. She claimed her husband was a businessman based in Jakarta who had interests in timber, entertainment and in a hotel. She did not have any income of her own but depended on her husband although she owned two properties in Singapore paid for by her husband. Lately however, the plaintiff had started a small business selling shawls.

10 In purported repayment of the loans, the plaintiff deposed that the first defendant issued the three cheques drawn on Global’s account with United Overseas Bank (“UOB”), Bukit Timah Branch, as follows:

Date Cheque no Amount

26.12.01 281249 $206,000

26.01.02 021297 $154,500

30.01.02 021300 $154,500

$515,000

The first defendant had been made an authorised signatory by the second defendant, of Global’s UOB account in July 1998. The first defendant instructed UOB to stop payment on the three cheques on 28 January 2002. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant told her not to present the three cheques for payment as otherwise they would be dishonoured. In the event, the plaintiff never presented any of the three cheques for payment.

11 In the course of the plaintiff’s cross-examination, counsel for the second defendant drew her attention to various cash deposits credited to the plaintiff’s DBS bank account. While she acknowledged receiving the various sums, the plaintiff claimed she had no way of knowing that they were payments by the first defendant. There were also remittances to her DBS account by way of telegraphic transfer (“TT”) from Jakarta. Again, the plaintiff testified she would not know if the remitter was the first defendant.

12 Counsel for the second defendant asserted (but which the plaintiff denied) that the first defendant paid the plaintiff interest on the loans when she credited the plaintiff’s account with monthly sums of $3,000 between November 2003 and February 2004. The plaintiff claimed the small sums were meant to placate her whenever she asked the first defendant for repayment of the loans, which duration was only supposed to be for two months each.

13 Counsel for the second defendant noted (see [6] above) that in exchange for the plaintiff’s first loan of $200,000, the first defendant issued UOB cheque no 281249 (see [10]) for $206,000. For the plaintiff’s second loan of $150,000, UOB cheque no 021297 given in exchange was for $154,500 whilst for the third loan of $150,000, UOB cheque no 021300 given in exchange was for $154,500. Asked to explain the difference of $15,000 between the three loans and amounts in the three cheques, the plaintiff prevaricated by claiming that the first defendant told her (the plaintiff) not to ask too many questions but to take the cheques.[2] The plaintiff denied the $15,000 represented interest payments (at 3%) and that she was a moneylender, let alone an unlicensed moneylender.

14 Prior to the trial, the second defendant had administered Interrogatories to the plaintiff (on 16 August 2004). The plaintiff filed her Answers on 17 September 2004 wherein she admitted receiving $16,900 from the first defendant via monthly TT remittances (between 13 November 2002 and 11 February 2004). Questioned how she knew those remittances came from the first defendant, the plaintiff explained she had the records and bank statements to evidence her receipt of the sums. Questioned why she did not deduct these remittances from the default judgment sum of $670,000 she had obtained against the first defendant, the plaintiff’s unconvincing explanation was that it would have been confusing for her to go to her counsel to change the amount every time the first defendant paid her in dribs and drabs. She preferred to obtain judgment for the loans and deduct from the judgment sum whatever amounts the first defendant had paid her.

15 Questioned by the court why she continued to lend three more sums (totalling $170,000) to the first defendant even though the latter failed to repay her previous three advances totalling $500,000, the plaintiff explained it was to enable the first defendant to roll over the money in Global. Once the first defendant’s supplier was paid, the first defendant had promised the plaintiff she would repay the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied the suggestion from opposing counsel that she was prompted to make further loans because she was collecting interest from the first defendant.

16 The plaintiff eventually admitted she had received total remittances of $80,100 from the first defendant[3] over and above the $16,900 admitted in her Answer to Interrogatory No 3. The sum of $16,900 was paid by five payments between 13 November 2002 and 11...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 books & journal articles
  • Banking Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...drawer has no funds, he should equally be excused if the cheque is countermanded by the drawer. However, in Henny Sutanto v Suriani Tani[2005] SGHC 82, Lai Siu Chiu J decided, inter alia, that a payee was not excused from presenting a cheque for payment even though the drawer had informed t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT