Lo Hing Yong v Reign Geoponics Pte Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Tan Puay Boon |
| Judgment Date | 02 September 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] SGDC 242 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | District Court Suit No 1297 of 2016, Registrar’s Appeal No HC/RAS 21 of 2016 |
| Published date | 09 September 2016 |
| Year | 2016 |
| Hearing Date | 02 September 2016,26 July 2016 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Audrey Lim Ruixuan (M/s Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC) |
| Defendant Counsel | Dhanwant Singh (M/s S K Kumar Law Practice LLP) |
| Subject Matter | Banking,Cheques,Notice of dishonour,Bills of Exchange and Other Negotiable Instruments,Delivery,Conditional,Legal Proceedings,Summary judgment,Civil procedure |
| Citation | [2016] SGDC 242 |
This was an action commenced by the Plaintiff (Lo Hing Yong) against the Defendant (Reign Geoponics Pte Ltd) to claim the amounts on 2 cheques issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, both of which were dishonoured.
The Plaintiff is a Singapore citizen residing in Singapore. The Defendant is a company incorporated in Singapore in 2015. Its business included farming activities utilising technological means, and general wholesale trade.
The Defendant drew and delivered to the Plaintiff the following 2 cheques –
The Plaintiff presented the cheques for payment on 5 August 2015. They were dishonoured and returned marked “Refer to Drawer” the following day.
On 12 April 2016, the Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant at its registered address to give notice of dishonour of the cheques, and also demanded payment for the total sum of S$90,000.00 by 19 April 2016.
The present suit was filed on 26 April 2016 when no payment was made.
The DefenceIn its Defence filed on 22 May 2016, the Defendant did not deny its business activities, but averred that there was a “lack of privity of dealing between the Plaintiff and Defendants at all material times”1.
The Defendant admitted that the cheques were drawn in favour of the Plaintiff, but “only conditionally that is without obligation or consideration save for the Plaintiff to hold on to the cheques pending the relevant (Insignia Holdings Pte. Ltd) Party’s response to pay the Plaintiff and to which the Plaintiff was agreeable such that it was clear to the parties (Plaintiff and Defendants) that there was no consideration flowing from the Plaintiff to the Defendants or vice-versa”2.
The Defendant also averred that it was not notified of the presentation and return of the cheques as these were done without its knowledge, consent or information3.
The Defendant further admitted receiving the demand by the Plaintiff’s solicitors, but maintained that it had no obligations to pay4.
The application for summary judgmentThe Plaintiff filed an application on 3 June 2016 under O.14, r.1 of the Rules of Court (ROC) for summary judgment to be entered against the Defendant, and the Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) date given was 13 July 2016.
Under O.14, r.2(1), the Plaintiff was required to serve the summons and the affidavit in support on the Defendant within 3 days from the date of filing. The affidavit to show cause from the Defendant has to be served on the Plaintiff within 14 days of the service. The Plaintiff was also given 14 days from the service of the Defendant’s affidavit to file and serve any affidavit in reply.
The summons and affidavit in support were served on 3 June 2016, the same day that they were filed. When no affidavit to show cause was received by the Plaintiff by the date due, i.e. 17 June 2016, his solicitors wrote to the Registry on 24 June 2016 to request that the PTC for the application, originally fixed on 13 July 2016, to be brought forward so that the application could be heard expeditiously. The request was acceded to, and the PTC was fixed on 29 June 2016.
By the day of the PTC, still no affidavit to show cause was filed or even prepared in draft form. The Defendant’s counsel informed the Deputy Registrar hearing the PTC that the filing of the affidavit was overlooked. His oral application for leave to file the affidavit was opposed by the Plaintiff’s counsel, and leave was refused.
The hearing of the summons then proceeded.
In exercise of the powers under O.34A of ROC, the Deputy Registrar granted the Plaintiff’s application, and gave judgment for the sum of $90,000.00 with interest on that sum pursuant to section 57 of the Bills of Exchange Act (Cap. 23). She also ordered the Defendant to pay costs of $3,000 (which was all inclusive).
On 8 July 2016, the Defendant filed an appeal against the whole of the decision of the Deputy Registrar.
The appealThe hearing of the appeal was fixed before me on 26 July 2016, a Tuesday. By this day, 39 days have elapsed since 17 June 2016, the day by which the affidavit to show cause should have been filed, and 27 days have elapsed since 29 June 2016, the day on which the summons was heard and judgment granted by the Deputy Registrar.
Even then, no affidavit to show cause was filed. Nor was any summons to apply for leave to file the affidavit out of time filed. Instead, the Defendant’s counsel (who did not appear before the Deputy Registrar) made an oral application for an adjournment of the appeal hearing so that he could file, by the following Monday, an application for leave to file the affidavit to show cause out of time.
There was nothing on affidavit before me which could have allowed me to consider whether to grant the adjournment to allow the Defendant to file an application for leave to file the affidavit to show cause out of time. There was also no explanation why a summons to extend time for filing of the affidavit was not filed earlier. Further, the Defendant’s counsel was “unable to comment whether any draft affidavit [to show cause] has been prepared” after all this time.
The time for filing the affidavit has long passed. There was no good reason, or no reason at all why the timings in the ROC should not be followed. I therefore did not allow the adjournment for the Defendant to apply for leave to file the affidavit to show cause out of time. Otherwise, there would be no purpose in having the timelines in the rules if they could be breached at will. I then proceeded to deal with the appeal based on the cause papers already before the court.
After hearing both counsel, I dismissed the appeal. I upheld the orders of the Deputy Registrar, and also ordered the costs of the appeal to be fixed at $1,200, plus disbursements and GST, to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
On 5 August 2016, the Defendant filed an appeal against my decision.
My decision
The facts
It was not in dispute that the Defendant had issued 2 cheques for sums totalling $90,000.00 to the Plaintiff, which were dishonoured when they were presented for payment.
The law
Under the Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23), the Plaintiff has a statutory right to make an immediate claim against the Defendant the amount due under the cheques when they were dishonoured5.
For actions on cheques, the Court of Appeal in
“We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated as cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary.” (e.g. if there is an arguable case based on total failure of consideration).
(Singapore Civil Procedure 2016 Volume 1, at [14/4/11])
In the Singapore Civil Procedure 2016 Volume 1, the editors stated at [14/4/3] that –
The power to give summary judgment under O 14 is “intended only to apply to cases where there is no reasonable doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to judgment and where it is inexpedient to allow a defendant to defend for mere purposes of delay” (
Jones v Stone [1894] AC 122,Habibullah Mohamed Yousuff v India Bank [1999] 3 SLR 650 … As a general principle, where a defendant shows that he has a fair case for defence, or reasonable grounds for setting up a defence, or even a fair probability that he has abona fide defence, he ought to have leave to defend (…Ironclad v Gardner (1892) 4 TLR 18;Ward v Plumbley (1890) 6 TLR 198;Habibullah Mohamed Yousuff v India Bank [1999] 3 SLR 650).
Thus, in an application for summary judgment under O.14 for the amount of a dishonoured cheque, where the defendant’s affidavits raised an arguable case of total failure of consideration, non-delivery of the cheques and an arguable case based on fraud, conditional leave to defend was given (
In the Singapore Civil Procedure 2016 Volume 1, the editors also stated at [14/2/12] that –
A defendant should set out all his defences in his pleadings so that a plaintiff can properly assess the chances of a summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial