United Overseas Bank Ltd v Tru-line Beauty Consultants Pte Ltd and others
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Woo Bih Li J |
Judgment Date | 17 December 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 363 |
Published date | 22 December 2010 |
Date | 17 December 2010 |
Year | 2010 |
Hearing Date | 11 November 2010 |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lionel Tay, Ng Pei Jing and Esme Wei (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 363 |
Defendant Counsel | Lee Chung Yen Steven and Alvin Chia (Hilborne & Company) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 1057 of 2009/E (Registrar’s Appeal Nos 261 of 2010/G and 262 of 2010/L) |
United Overseas Bank Limited (“UOB”) instituted the main action, Suit No 1057 of 2009/E (“Suit 1057”), against its customer – Tru-line Beauty Consultants Pte Ltd (the “Borrower”), as well as the Borrower’s guarantors – Lee Hwee Loo (“Lee”) and Tan Wei Hong (“Tan”) (collectively referred to as the “Guarantors”), for sums allegedly outstanding under two banking facilities granted by UOB to the Borrower.
Registrar’s Appeal No 261 of 2010/G (“RA 261”) is the appeal of the Borrower and the Guarantors against the decision of the Assistant Registrar (“the AR”), in Summons No 1185 of 2010/Y (“Sum 1185”), to grant summary judgment to UOB for its claim in Suit 1057. Registrar’s Appeal No 262 of 2010/L (“RA 262”) is UOB’s appeal against the AR’s dismissal of UOB’s application, in Summons No 1184 of 2010/T (“Sum 1184”), to strike out paras 24–31 of the Defence and Counterclaim. I dismissed both appeals on 11 November 2010.
Background UOB had granted the Borrower two banking facilities (collectively referred to as the “Banking Facilities”):
Lee and Tan were joint and several guarantors for the Borrower under two on-demand guarantees in favour of UOB (“the Guarantees”). The guarantee for the Trust Receipt Facility was dated 26 October 2007 and had a limit of S$450,000. The guarantee for the OD Facility was dated 29 October 2007 and had a limit of S$180,000. The Borrower’s liabilities under the Banking Facilities were secured by the Guarantees as well as a Letter of Charge and Set-off (the “FD Charge”) executed by Lee in respect of fixed deposits of not less than S$60,000 placed by Lee with UOB. Clause 9 of the Guarantees provided that the Guarantors would be sole and principal debtors
UOB’s Standard Terms and Conditions Governing Banking Facilities (the “Standard Terms”) were annexed to the 1
Clause 10 of the Standard Terms provided as follows:
WAIVER WITHOUT PREJUDICE The Bank may neglect or forbear to enforce any of the terms in this Agreement or waive on such conditions as it deems fit any breach by you of the samewithout prejudice to its right at any time afterwards to act strictly in accordance with the originally agreed terms in respect of the existing or subsequent breach. [emphasis added]
EVENTS OF DEFAULT On the occurrence of any of the following events of default (i) the Bank shall cease to be under any further commitment to you and all outstandings under the entire credit line (“the Outstandings”) shall become due and payable immediately... :
...
...
[emphasis added]
On or about 3 April 2009, UOB issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 1TMLC033498 for the sum of EUR26,565.42 (“the L/C”) to the Borrower in favour of Davines S P A (“Davines”). At the material time, the Borrower was Davines’ local exclusive distributor of hair products.
On 21 May 2009, UOB faxed a document titled Collection Notice Term Bills to the Borrower (“the Collection Notice”) informing the Borrower that UOB had received documents from Davines for the sum of EUR26,565.42 in respect of the L/C and seeking the Borrower’s instructions with regards to discrepancies in the documents. The reference number for the Collection Notice was 1TMTB011222. The Borrower ticked and signed an option on the Collection Notice which stated that it required a Trust Receipt. It returned the Collection Notice to UOB on the same date.
On 26 May 2009, 9 June 2009 and 10 June 2009, UOB had sent SWIFT messages to Davines’ negotiating bank to inform it that the documents remained refused and that UOB was holding the documents until it received “a waiver from [the Borrower] and agree[d] to accept it, or receive[d] further instructions from [Davines’ negotiating bank], prior to agreeing to accept a waiver”.
As the Borrower failed to repay UOB the moneys owed under three bills outstanding on the Borrower’s current account (Bill No. 1TMIL102592 for EUR43,990.29; Bill No. 1TMIL110572 for EUR9,398.26; and Bill No. 1TMIL102928 for US$20,926.80), UOB sent a letter of demand (the “Recall Letter”) on or about 8 July 2009 to the Borrower and the Guarantors demanding that they make full payment of the outstanding due within five days from the date of the Recall Letter, failing which all of the Borrower’s Banking Facilities would be deemed to have been recalled by UOB and UOB would proceed to uplift the fixed deposit pledged under the FD Charge. Although there was a typographical error in Tan’s address (the street number was stated as “83” instead of “82”), Tan did not dispute receipt of this letter.
It was undisputed that the Borrower and the Guarantors failed to comply with the demands stated in the Recall Letter.
UOB recalled the Banking Facilities on or about 13 July 2009. UOB also sent Lee a Withdrawal Advice slip dated 31 July 2009 to inform Lee that UOB had uplifted a fixed deposit under the FD Charge.
On 3 August 2009, UOB sent a letter to the Borrower to inform it that Bill No. 1TMTB011222 for the amount of EUR26,565.42 under the L/C would be due on 18 August 2009 (“the Term Bill Notice”). The Term Bill Notice stated:
PLEASE ADVISE US ON YOUR PREFERRED SETTLEMENT MODE BY SELECTING THE OPTIONS BELOW:
On 14 August 2009, UOB sent a SWIFT message to Davines’ negotiating bank to inform it that UOB was returning the full set of discrepant documents (see
On or about 24 August 2009, UOB’s solicitors, Rajah & Tann LLP (“R&T”) sent a further letter of demand to the Borrower demanding payment of the total outstanding sums under the Banking Facilities. The letter was titled:
It detailed the outstanding sums as follows:BANKING FACILITIES GRANTED BY UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED AND SECURED BY A CONTINUING PERSONAL GUARANTEE FOR THE PRINCIPAL SUM OF S$180,000.00 AND A CONTINUING PERSONAL GUARANTEE FOR THE PRINCIPAL SUM OF S$450,000.00 EXECUTED BY TAN WEI HONG AND LEE HWEE LOO IN FAVOUR OF UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED (COLLECTIVELY, THE “GUARANTEES”)
We are further instructed that you have defaulted and/or failed to make payment on the outstandings in respect of the following:-
On the same day, R&T sent a further letter (erroneously dated 21 August 2009) to the Guarantors demanding from the Guarantors full payment of the total outstanding sum under the Banking Facilities of S$25,121.93, EUR128,182.24 and US$21,285.05 together with further legal interest and legal costs. The letter to the Guarantors stated that a copy of R&T’s letter of demand to the Borrower dated 24 August 2009 was enclosed but the Guarantors claimed that the said letter was not in fact enclosed. R&T’s letters were served on the Borrower and the Guarantors by way of AR Registered Mail and Certificate of Posting. The letters to the Guarantors were not sent to their address as stated in the Guarantees but were instead sent to their addresses as stated in an Enhanced Instant Search on the...[emphasis in bold in original]
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PEMBINAAN MUTHIAH & SONS (M) SDN BHD (Company No.: 705020-U) vs SWEE PREMIX SDN BHD (Company No.: 557291-V)
...(S) Pte Ltd v Szu Ming Trading Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 13 at [32] and [33]; United Overseas Bank Ltd v Tru-line Beauty Consultants Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 590, SGHC at [41] to [44]; Nanyang Law LLC v Alphomega Research Group Ltd [2010] 3 SLR 914, SGHC at [17]; Invar Realty Pte Ltd v Kenzo Tange Ur......
-
A*Glasstech Pte Ltd v Full-Glass Pte Ltd
...and the plaintiff’s ability to satisfy judgment on the counterclaim (United Overseas Bank Pte Ltd v Tru-line Beauty Consultants Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 590 at [45]; Kim Seng Orchid at [98(d)]). In relation to the degree of connection, it appears that if the counterclaim “arises out of quite a ......
-
A*Glasstech Pte. Ltd. v Full-Glass Pte Ltd
...[15] of Defence and Counterclaim 25 Tan’s 6th Affidavit 26 Cited in United Overseas Bank Pte Ltd v Tru-line Beauty Consultants Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 590 27 [26] & [28] of Abdul...
-
THE COURT‘S RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIMS IN PROCEEDINGS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
...for an equitable set-off in addition to legal set-off in view of the connection between the claims. 54 See para 37 of this article. 55 [2011] 2 SLR 590. 56 The claim by the bank did not include any sum in respect of the letter of credit and the borrower‘s counterclaim in respect of the lett......