ING Bank N V v Inselatu Co Pte Ltd: Guarantee, Undue Influence & Banking Facilities
ING Bank N V, the Plaintiff, sued Inselatu Co Pte Ltd, Kohar Widjaja, and Chu Mei Hu, the Defendants, in the High Court of Singapore. The Plaintiff sought to recover sums due under banking facilities granted to the 1st Defendant, with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as sureties. The 3rd Defendant appealed against the summary judgment, claiming undue influence in signing the guarantee and irregularities in the account. The court dismissed the 3rd Defendant's appeal, finding no evidence of undue influence and holding that the alleged irregularities did not affect her liability under the guarantee.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against summary judgment. The court found no undue influence in signing the guarantee and dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ING Bank N V | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Inselatu Co Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| Kohar Widjaja alias Kho Sioe Thiam | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| Chu Mei Hu | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Susan Tang | Francis Khoo & Lim |
| Alvin Tan | Wong Thomas & Leong |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiffs, ING Bank N V, granted banking facilities to the 1st Defendants, Inselatu Co Pte Ltd.
- The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, Kohar Widjaja and Chu Mei Hu, were directors of the 1st Defendant and signed a Deed of Guarantee.
- The 3rd Defendant claimed she was subjected to undue influence by the 2nd Defendant, her husband, when signing the guarantee.
- The 3rd Defendant was a shareholder and director of the 1st Defendant and another company.
- The 3rd Defendant had entered into a Deed of Separation with the 2nd Defendant prior to signing the guarantee.
- The Plaintiffs sought summary judgment against all three defendants.
- The 3rd Defendant appealed against the summary judgment, claiming undue influence and irregularities in the account.
5. Formal Citations
- ING Bank N V v Inselatu Co Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 1005/1999, [2000] SGHC 81
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First letter of offer for credit facilities was made to the First Defendants. | |
| Deed of Separation entered into by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. | |
| Letter of offer was made to the First Defendants. | |
| Deed of Guarantee signed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. | |
| Letter of offer for short-term multi-currency facilities was made to the 1st Defendant. | |
| Plaintiffs advised the 1st Defendants of sums due. | |
| Sum due had increased. | |
| Judgment was entered against the 1st Defendants. | |
| 1st Defendants made some payments to account. | |
| Plaintiffs certified the amount due and owing by the 1st Defendants. | |
| Plaintiffs obtained summary judgment against all three defendants. | |
| Appeal by the 3rd Defendant was dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found no undue influence exerted on the 3rd Defendant in signing the guarantee.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Constructive notice of undue influence
- Duty of bank to advise independent legal advice
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 4 All E R 417
- Liability under Guarantee
- Outcome: The court held that the 3rd Defendant was liable under the guarantee as it was a continuing guarantee covering all monies due to the Plaintiffs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Continuing guarantee
- Scope of guarantee
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Interest
- Costs on an indemnity basis
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Guarantee
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank plc v O’Brien | House of Lords | Yes | [1993] 4 All E R 417 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of undue influence in guarantee agreements, particularly in the context of husband-wife relationships and the bank's duty of inquiry. |
| Lim Lie Hoa v Ong Jane Rebecca | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 320 | Singapore | Cited as an example of undue influence arising in a mother-son relationship. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 27 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Banking facilities
- Deed of Guarantee
- Undue influence
- Continuing guarantee
- Summary judgment
- Letter of offer
- Surety
- Constructive notice
15.2 Keywords
- Guarantee
- Undue Influence
- Banking Facilities
- Summary Judgment
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Guarantee | 80 |
| Banking and Finance | 75 |
| Deeds of Guarantee | 75 |
| Undue Influence | 70 |
| Contract Law | 65 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Banking
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Guarantees
- Undue Influence