Hill Samuel Merchant Bank Asia Ltd v Resources Development Corp Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Goh Joon Seng J |
Judgment Date | 30 September 1992 |
Neutral Citation | [1992] SGCA 64 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 143 of 1991 |
Date | 30 September 1992 |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
Year | 1992 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Choi Yok Hung and Corinna Lim (Allen & Gledhill) |
Citation | [1992] SGCA 64 |
Defendant Counsel | Davinder Singh (Drew & Napier) and John Ng Lee Chye (Tan Lee & Partners) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Evidence,Presumptions,Whether prima facie inference of inducement could be drawn,False and misleading documents,Contract,Absence of direct factual evidence,Relevant inferences,Materiality,Misrepresentation,Proof of evidence,Letter of credit |
The appellant, a merchant bank, issued irrevocable documentary credits to pay the suppliers of a client, Active Building & Civil Construction (Pte) Ltd (`ABC Co`). Each documentary credit was premised upon a contract between ABC Co and its supplier for the subsequent delivery of goods. The appellant would pay the supplier upon presentation of an invoice and a delivery order by the supplier evidencing the sale and delivery of the goods to ABC Co.
On 17 January 1985, the appellant, on ABC Co`s request, issued a credit of this nature in favour of the respondent, a regular supplier of ABC Co`s, in the sum of $265,222.80, to pay for a consignment of granite and concrete to be sent to ABC Co by the respondent. An invoice and a delivery note were issued by the responin respect of these goods, both dated 21 January 1985. They did not positively state that the sale and delivery happened on that date, but no other date appeared on these documents to which these events might have been ascribed.
The relevant goods had in fact been sold and delivered to ABC Co by the respondent about three months earlier. ABC Co was unable to pay the respondent for them, but the appellant did not know this. The appellant saw only the invoice and the delivery note, and concluded that the sale and delivery happened on the date printed on these documents. So believing, the appellant paid the respondent. ABC Co subsequently went into liquidation and the appellant claimed the money back from the respondent on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation and, alternatively, as money had and received by the respondent to the use of the appellant as the result of a payment made under a mistake of fact.
In the court below, the learned judge, in an oral judgment, found as a fact that the credit issued by the appellant was intended for goods yet to be supplied and did not provide for or contemplate the financing of old invoices or debit notes; that this was known to the respondent; that the delivery note was misleading and the invoice false; and that the respondent intended the appellant to act upon these documents. However, he dismissed the appellant`s claim on the ground that the appellant had to prove that the false documents had induced it to pay the responand it had failed to do so. On whatever standard of proof, whether it was a strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt ( Saminathan v Pappa 1) or a more flexible standard on a balance of probabilities ( Hornal v Neuberger Products Ltd [1956] 3 All ER 970 Peck Constance Emily v Calvary Charismatic Centre Ltd [1991] 2 MLJ 455 ), he held that the appellant had failed to discharge its burden. The appeal to us lay against that decision. We allowed the appeal and now give reasons for our decision.
Counsel for the appellant argued that inducement had in fact been proved, for the fraudulent documents would have entitled the appellant to refuse payment had the truth been known. She contended that the court could infer that the appellant had been induced by the false documents to pay the respondent even though there was no direct factual evidence to that effect. In support of this contention, she relied on William Smith v Chadwick [1884] 9 App Cas 187 Matthias v Yetts [1882] 46 LT 497 and Arnison v Smith [1889] 41 Ch D 348
Counsel for the respondent contended that, on the evidence before the court, the inference of inducement ought not to be made. Above all, it was strongly urged upon us that the respondent would be unfairly prejudiced if such an inference were drawn in the absence of oral evidence by one who was at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
UniCredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd
...Trust Co v Simpson 143 A 202 (Pa, 1928) (refd) Hill Samuel Merchant Bank Asia Ltd v Resources Development Corp Ltd [1992] 3 SLR(R) 107; [1992] 2 SLR 967 (refd) John Hudson & Co Ltd v Richard Oaten [1980] WL 612807 (refd) Korea Industry Co Ltd v Andoll Ltd [1989] 2 SLR(R) 300; [1989] SLR 134......
-
UniCredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd
...other worthless material and rubbish had been shipped (see also Hill Samuel Merchant Bank Asia Ltd v Resources Development Corp Ltd [1992] 3 SLR(R) 107 at [3], [9] and [11]; Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd [1978] QB 159 at 169). This exception is limited to fra......