Tan Chong Keng v Lim Bak Keng Vincent

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 10 January 1986
• Neutral Citation: [1986] SGCA 1
• Date: 10 January 1986
• Subject Matter: Contract,Marking,Breach,Tickets paid by respondent,Action dismissed,Banking,Loan,Possession of cheque,Payment to respondent by cheque,Cheque dishonoured after action commenced,Prima facie authority to fill in date,ss 3(4) & 20(1) Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 28, 1970 Ed),Validity,Cheque dishonoured only after action commenced,Cheques,Purchase of airline tickets,Undated cheque,Dishonour,Conditional payment of debt
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 46 of 1983
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Low Tiang Hock (Wee Swee Teow & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Ching Tiong (Low & Partners)

The claim by the plaintiff, the respondent, is simply for the balance of the loans amounting to $17,080 made by him to the defendant, the appellant, during the period between 12 May 1975 and 27 August 1975. At all material times, the respondent was the administration manager of Cathay Pacific Airways (CPA) and was authorized to sell airline tickets for and on behalf of CPA, and the appellant was the managing director of a tour agency company, Lucky Associated (the company). It is the case of the respondent that during the said period the appellant on behalf of the company on four separate occasions purchased from CPA airline tickets totalling $19,398, in respect of which, he gave to the respondent four cheques all undated and drawn by the company. CPA allowed credit for 90 days for payments of these tickets and on the expiry of the said period, the respondent at the request of the appellant paid the amount to CPA. Subsequently, in October 1976 the appellant gave a cheque for $1,000 to CPA, and there were unused tickets in respect of which CPA refunded the sum of $1,317.25. These two amounts were appropriated by the respondent in part payment of the amount owing to him, leaving a balance of $17,080. In 1978, the appellant gave to the respondent a cheque for $17,080, again undated, in exchange for the four cheques which were returned to the appellant. This amount remained unpaid and on 12 September 1979 solicitors for the respondent demanded payment of the amount of $17,080 from the appellant, and as no payment was made the respondent instituted the present action against the appellant for recovery of the amount. At the commencement of the action the cheque had not been dated and presented for payment; it was subsequently dated 5 February 1980 and presented to the bank for payment but was returned unpaid with two remarks: (i) `refer to drawer` and (ii) `cheque incomplete`.

The claim by the respondent was resisted by the appellant, and he raised three defences. First, the appellant maintained that there was no amount owing to the respondent. According to him on behalf of the company he purchased from CPA airline tickets from time to time and it was agreed between him and the respondent that in consideration of the appellant lending moneys to the respondent at the latter`s request from time to time, the latter would accept from the company undated cheques in payment of airline tickets purchased by the company from CPA and would present the cheques for payment as and when he (the respondent) had paid the debts owing to the appellant. During the period between 3 June and 29 August 1975 the company purchased from CPA airline tickets to the value of $19,398 and the appellant gave to the respondent four cheques all undated and drawn by the company for the said amount. The appellant alleged that in pursuance of the said agreement he lent to the respondent from time to time various sums of money for the purpose of placing bets with the Singapore Turf Club, and the four undated cheques were not presented for payment because the total amount represented thereby was equal to the amount owed by the respondent to the appellant on the betting account. In repayment of this amount the respondent returned to the appellant the said four cheques and agreed to pay the outstanding sum to CPA. However, at the request of the respondent, the appellant handed to him the appellant`s personal cheque undated for $17,080 to enable the respondent to show it to CPA should he be queried pending the payment of this amount to CPA.

Secondly, the appellant said that if the respondent had paid to CPA the total sum of $19,398, this payment was made on behalf of the company and therefore the appellant was not personally liable to the respondent for the sum.

Lastly, and in the alternative, the appellant said that if the respondent had lent a sum of $19,398 to him and the outstanding amount owing was $17,080 as alleged, the respondent had received from the appellant a cheque for $17,080 in payment thereof, and as at the commencement of the action the respondent had not presented the said cheque for payment the respondent`s...