Marina Sports Ltd v Alliance Richfield Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How J
• Judgment Date: 12 April 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 27
• Docket Number: DC 3864/89
• Date: 12 April 1990
• Year: 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Loo Dip Seng (Ang & Partners)
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 27
• Defendant Counsel: Mansur Husain (Gabriel Peter & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether triable issues raised,O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Summary judgment,Cheque dishonoured,Civil Procedure

Cur Adv Vult

In this case, the defendants Alliance Richfield Pte Ltd drew a cheque postdated to 24 March 1989 upon the Bank of Singapore Ltd for $15,000 payable to cash or bearer and delivered the cheque to the plaintiffs Marina Sports Ltd, which is a Thai legal entity with its registered address at Phuket in Thailand. The plaintiffs negotiated the postdated cheque to Silomini, who presented the cheque for payment on 25 March 1989, when it was dishonoured, payment having been countermanded by the defendants. Silomini returned the cheque to the plaintiffs and were repaid by the plaintiffs.

On 17 July 1989, the plaintiffs issued a writ against the defendants in the district court, and on 26 July 1989 took out a summons for final judgment under O 14 of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1986. On 29 August 1989, before the hearing of the summons, the defendants filed an affidavit setting out the background of the transaction. This stated that the defendants were intermediaries who acted on the plaintiffs` behalf in the sale of the plaintiffs` vessel, the `Falcon`, to a third party, Manta Sports Ltd (`Manta`). The vessel was damaged while it was being delivered, whereupon Manta informed the defendants that they would not pay US$15,000 of the balance of the purchase price. This information was duly passed on by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs then asked the defendants to persuade Manta to pay a reduced sum of US$7,500 which the defendants agreed to do.

Before knowing the outcome of the defendants` efforts, the plaintiffs persuaded the defendants to make what can only be described as an advance payment of US$7,500. One of the plaintiffs` directors, Somchai Sillapanont, asked the defendants to issue a postdated cheque for this sum in favour of the plaintiffs. His reason for this request was that it was difficult for him to contact the defendants in Singapore; therefore a postdated cheque in the plaintiffs` favour, to be banked in when the defendants received payment from Manta, would ease the problem of passing payment to the plaintiffs. The defendants wanted to get Somchai off their backs as they were confident at that time that they would be able to persuade Manta to pay the US$7,500 and settle the matter. The defendants therefore agreed to issue a postdated cheque for $15,000 as requested, this amount being the equivalent of US$7,500, on the condition, however, that it would only be banked in after the defendants had received payment from Manta, and after the defendants had confirmed to the plaintiffs that they could bank in the cheque. Accordingly on 24 February 1989, the defendants issued to the plaintiffs a cash or bearer cheque for $15,000 postdated to 24 March 1989.

It transpired that after the plaintiffs negotiated the cheque to Silomini the latter presented it for payment on 27 February 1989, before the due date, when it was dishonoured. When the defendant`s bank informed them that the cheque had been presented and dishonoured on 27 February 1989, the...