Sutanto Henny v Suriani Tani: Striking Out Claim for Cheque Payment
In Sutanto Henny v Suriani Tani also known as Li Yu and Chandra Suwandi t/a M/s Global Standard Marketing, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Sutanto Henny against the decision to strike out her claim against Chandra Suwandi for payment of three cheques drawn on Global Standard Marketing's account. Sutanto had received the cheques from Suriani Tani as partial repayment of loans. The court, delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, allowed the appeal, finding that the claim was not hopeless or unarguable and should proceed to trial.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding striking out a claim for payment of cheques. The court allowed the appeal, finding the claim not hopeless or unarguable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sutanto Henny | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Suriani Tani also known as Li Yu | Defendant | Individual | Default Judgment | Lost | |
| Chandra Suwandi t/a M/s Global Standard Marketing | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Mun Hooi | Lee Mun Hooi and Co |
| Wong Nan Shee | Lee Mun Hooi and Co |
| Julian Tay Wei Loong | Lee and Lee |
4. Facts
- Sutanto loaned Suriani $670,000.
- Suriani gave Sutanto five cheques as partial repayment.
- Three cheques totaling $515,000 were drawn on Global's UOB account.
- Suriani was an authorized signatory on Global's UOB account.
- Suriani placed a stop payment notice on the three UOB cheques.
- The three UOB cheques were not presented for payment on their respective due dates.
- Sutanto obtained default judgment against Suriani.
5. Formal Citations
- Sutanto Henny v Suriani Tani also known as Li Yu and Another, Suit 275/2003/F, RA 269/2003/S, [2004] SGHC 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mandate Application signed | |
| Cheque number 281249 dated | |
| Cheque number 021297 dated | |
| Stop payment notice placed on three cheques | |
| Cheque number 021300 dated | |
| Default judgment obtained against Suriani Tani | |
| Second defendant appealed against decision | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court held that the claim should not have been struck out as it was not hopeless or unarguable.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 1 SLR 281
- [1991] SLR 798
- [1998] 1 SLR 374
- Authority to Draw Cheques
- Outcome: The court found that the issue of whether Suriani had the authority to draw the cheques on behalf of Chandra required further evidence and could not be resolved summarily.
- Category: Substantive
- Consideration for Cheques
- Outcome: The court found that the issue of whether there was consideration for the cheques required further evidence and could not be resolved summarily.
- Category: Substantive
- Presentment for Payment
- Outcome: The court found that the issue of whether the need for presentment was waived required further evidence and could not be resolved summarily.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1971] 1 MLJ 148
- Holder in Due Course
- Outcome: The court noted conflicting arguments regarding whether the plaintiff could be considered a holder in due course, but ultimately did not resolve the issue.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1907] 1 KB 794
- [1926] AC 670
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment of Cheques
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim on Cheques
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Osprey | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 281 | Singapore | Cited for principles on striking out claims under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. |
| Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 798 | Singapore | Cited for principles on striking out claims under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claim should not be struck out if it discloses some cause of action or raises a question fit to be decided at trial. |
| Ng Kim Lek v Wee Hock Chye | High Court | Yes | [1971] 1 MLJ 148 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff is not precluded from suing on a cheque not presented for payment at the defendant's request. |
| Lloyd’s Bank, Limited v Cooke | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1907] 1 KB 794 | England and Wales | Cited for the dictum of Fletcher Moulton LJ regarding a payee's status as a holder in due course, but this dictum was later disapproved. |
| R E Jones, Limited v Waring and Gillow, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1926] AC 670 | United Kingdom | Cited as disapproving the dictum of Fletcher Moulton LJ in Lloyd's Bank, Limited v Cooke. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking out
- Bills of exchange
- Cheques
- Drawer
- Holder in due course
- Consideration
- Presentment for payment
- Authority to sign
- Stop payment notice
15.2 Keywords
- cheque
- striking out
- bills of exchange
- negotiable instruments
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Bills of Exchange | 80 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Commercial Law | 50 |
| Banking Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Bills of Exchange
- Banking Law