Pun Serge v Joy Head Investments Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Belinda Ang Saw Ean J |
Judgment Date | 29 June 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 182 |
Year | 2010 |
Date | 29 June 2010 |
Published date | 09 July 2010 |
Hearing Date | 08 February 2010,01 December 2009,03 December 2009,02 December 2009 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Jason Lim Chen Thor and Kevin De Souza (De Souza Lim & Goh LLP) |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 182 |
Defendant Counsel | Andre Yeap SC, Danny Ong Tun Wei and Yam Wern-Jhien (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 189 of 2009 |
Under an agreement dated 15 September 2008 (“the Agreement”), the plaintiff, Serge Pun (henceforth, “the Purchaser”), agreed to purchase the interests of the defendant, Joy Head Investments Limited (henceforth, “the Vendor”), in Winner Sight Investments Limited (“WSIL”), a company incorporated in Hong Kong, for a total consideration of HK$84,974,780 (“the Consideration”). These interests comprised 2,000 sale shares in the issued capital of WSIL and an outstanding shareholder’s loan by the Vendor to WSIL (henceforth collectively “the Vendor’s interests in WSIL”).
The Agreement was designed primarily to bring an end to earlier litigation between the Vendor and Purchaser in Suit No 225 of 2008 (“the Initial Action”). The details of the Initial Action are not relevant for present purposes; it suffices to say that that action was commenced against the Purchaser by the Vendor in respect of disputes relating to the purchase of the Vendor’s interests in WSIL.
It is common ground that the Purchaser acquired the Vendor’s interests in WSIL on 15 December 2008, having earlier failed to complete the transaction on 9 December 2008 as agreed (“the Agreed Completion Date”). This present action concerns the Vendor’s retention of S$1m which it received after it called on a performance bond furnished by the Purchaser in the form of an on-demand banker’s guarantee pursuant to the Agreement (“the Performance Bond”) immediately following the Purchaser’s breach of the Agreement on 9 December 2008. In brief, the nub of the issue between the parties is whether the Vendor is entitled, as it contends, to keep the full amount paid under the Performance Bond even though it had suffered no loss1 as a result of the Purchaser’s breach of the Agreed Completion Date of 9 December 2008. The events leading to the breach and the post-breach dealings between the parties are narrated below (see
The salient facts relevant to the dispute between the parties are relatively straightforward. Originally, under the Agreement, the Completion Date was stipulated to be 19 December 2008. However, on or about 5 December 2008, the parties agreed, at the Purchaser’s suggestion, to bring forward the Completion Date to 9 December 2008, the Agreed Completion Date. This was consistent with the terms of the Agreement, which stated that completion could take place on “such other earlier date as may be agreed in writing between the Vendor and the Purchaser”.2 On 9 December 2008, the Purchaser gave instructions for the Consideration to be remitted to the Vendor’s designated account. As it turned out, however, due to certain technicalities with the Purchaser’s financier, the money was not received in the designated account that day. Accordingly, completion did not take place on 9 December 2008.
On 10 December 2008, the Vendor demanded from the issuing bank (“OCBC Bank”) payment of the full amount of S$1m payable under the Performance Bond, and OCBC Bank duly paid the S$1m to the Vendor’s solicitors, M/s Rajah & Tann LLP (“R&T”), on or about 16 December 2008.
Between 10 December 2008 and 15 December 2008, the Purchaser’s representatives provided assurances and copies of documents to the Vendor in an attempt to satisfy the latter that instruction
This “completion”, however, proceeded (so the Vendor argues) on the supposed basis (as per R&T’s letter of 15 December 2008 3) that it would be without prejudice to the Vendor’s rights under the Agreement in respect of the Purchaser’s tardiness and breach on 9 December 2008, including but not limited to the alleged right to make a demand on the Performance Bond (which it had done on 10 December 2008) and to retain the proceeds thereof.4 In other words, from the Vendor’s point of view, the exchange of documents for the Consideration (the Vendor does not accept that what took place on 15 December 2008 was “Completion” as defined in the Agreement) was on the basis that the Vendor was entitled to demand and retain the sum of S$1m under the Performance Bond
On this second point (b), much of the present dispute turns on the interpretation of several clauses in the Agreement relating to the provision (and subsequent discharge) of the Performance Bond by the Purchaser. Clause 4.1.1 of the Agreement provides, very broadly, for the securing of “the obligations of the Purchaser under [the] Agreement” via the Performance Bond, as follows:8
At the time of the execution of this Agreement by the Parties and against delivery by the Vendor of the executed copy of this Agreement to the Purchaser or the Purchaser’s Solicitors, the Purchaser shall deliver to the Vendor and
the Vendor shall receive from the Purchaser a performance bond issued by a first class bank in Singapore on terms acceptable to the Vendor whereunder the performance of the obligations of the Purchaser under this Agreement shall be irrevocably and unconditionally secured by the above bank up to the maximum sum of S$1,000,000 “Performance Bond”). [emphasis added]
Based on the terms of the Agreement, it appears that the Performance Bond, which was in effect an on-demand banker’s guarantee, was meant as assurance for the Vendor against a multitude of contingencies that might have occurred
The Purchaser disagrees with the Vendor’s contentions and is now claiming for the return of the S$1m paid out under the Performance Bond. The Purchaser’s primary argument is that the Agreement
At this juncture, a proper consideration of the
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd
...EWCA Civ 239 (refd) PT Panosonic Gobel Indonesia v Stratech Systems Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 1017 (refd) Pun Serge v Joy Head Investments Ltd [2010] 4 SLR 478 (refd) Rajabali Jumabhoy v Ameerali R Jumabhoy [1998] 2 SLR (R) 434; [1998] 2 SLR 439 (folld) RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd ......
-
Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd
...LLC v Nimbus Media Pte Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 677 at [25]; and the decision of Belinda Ang Saw Ean J in Pun Serge v Joy Head Investments Ltd [2010] 4 SLR 478 at [40]. It should be noted that this last-mentioned case considered but did not accept a different test of “commercial justification” (at ......
-
SH Design & Build Pte Ltd v BD Cranetech Pte Ltd
...exceeds the seller’s damages. This principle was cited with approval by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J in Pun Serge v Joy Head Investments Ltd [2010] 4 SLR 478 at In this case the Adjudicator’s duty was to comprehensively determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the Subcontract, hav......
-
Scada Solutions Pte Ltd v Anderco Pte Ltd
...as to which completion dates to use/quantum of LD was a matter for arbitration. Counsel highlighted Pun Serge v Joy Head Investments Ltd [2010] 4 SLR 478 in which the High Court held that since a performance bond was not an estimate of damages that might flow from a breach of contract but r......
-
Banking Law
...bond over and above the amount of his loss as a result of the contractor's breach, if any (see Pun Serge v Joy Head Investments Ltd[2010] 4 SLR 478 applying Cargill International SA v Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corp[1998] 1 WLR 461). Where the employer makes a fraudulent or uncons......
-
Banking Law
...under the performance bond is under an implied obligation to account for any overpayment. In Pun Serge v Joy Head Investments Ltd [2010] 4 SLR 478 (‘Pun Serge’), the plaintiff, Serge Pun, agreed to purchase the interests of the defendant, Joy Head Investments Ltd, in Winner Sight Investment......