Raffles Money Change v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken: Forged Cheques & Bank's Right to Debit Account

Raffles Money Change Pte Ltd appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the District Court's decision to dismiss its claim against Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) for the wrongful debiting of €39,982.71 from its account. The debit was due to a forged Euro Draft that Raffles Money Change had deposited with the bank. The High Court, Chan Sek Keong CJ, dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank was entitled to debit the account and that Raffles Money Change had not proven it had changed its position to its detriment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Raffles Money Change's claim against Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken for wrongful debiting of its account due to a forged bank draft was dismissed. The court upheld the bank's right to debit the account.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Raffles Money Change Pte Ltd (formerly known as Honest Money Changer Pte Ltd)AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostN Sreenivasan, Palaniappan Sundararaj, Lin Ming Khin
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) (formerly known as Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB)RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWonChew Ming Hsien Rebecca, Nigel Pereira

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Palaniappan SundararajStraits Law Practice LLC
Lin Ming KhinDonaldson & Burkinshaw
Chew Ming Hsien RebeccaRajah & Tann LLP
Nigel PereiraRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. Raffles Money Change operated a foreign currency account with Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken.
  2. Raffles Money Change presented a Euro Draft for €40,000 to the bank for collection.
  3. The bank credited Raffles Money Change's account with €39,982.71, subject to final payment.
  4. The bank later discovered the Euro Draft was counterfeit and debited the account.
  5. Raffles Money Change claimed the bank wrongfully debited its account.
  6. The bank relied on its general terms and conditions to justify the debit.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Raffles Money Change Pte Ltd (formerly known as Honest Money Changer Pte Ltd) v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) (formerly known as Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB), DA 33/2007, [2009] SGHC 37

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Euro Draft dated
Appellant presented Euro Draft to Respondent for collection
Respondent informed Appellant of crediting account
Respondent credited Appellant's account
Respondent informed Appellant Euro Draft was counterfeit and debited account
Police report made
District Court Suit No 1465 of 2006
Ms Valerie Tan gave evidence
Raffles Money Change Pte Ltd v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) [2008] SGDC 70
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Wrongful Debiting of Account
    • Outcome: The court held that the bank was entitled to debit the appellant's account due to the forged bank draft.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Misrepresentation and Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no misrepresentation by the bank that led the appellant to rely on it to its detriment.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Applicability of General Terms and Conditions
    • Outcome: The court found that clauses 1.23 and 13.1 of the General Terms and Conditions did not provide a defence to the respondent in the present case.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Repayment of €39,982.71

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Estoppel

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Raffles Money Change Pte Ltd v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ)District CourtYes[2008] SGDC 70SingaporeCited as the decision of the District Judge which was being appealed.
Dovey v Bank of New ZealandNew Zealand Court of AppealYes[2000] 3 NZLR 328New ZealandDistinguished on the ground that both parties there had led expert evidence on the effect of a message sent under SWIFT.
Momm v Barclays Bank International LtdQueen's BenchYes[1977] QB 790England and WalesDistinguished as involving payment from one customer’s account to another customer’s account within the same bank.
Royal Products Ltd v Midland Bank Ltd and Bank of Valletta LtdUnknownYes[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 194England and WalesDistinguished as involving transfer of money between separate bank accounts at separate banks.
National Westminster Bank Ltd v Barclays Bank International LtdQueen's BenchYes[1975] QB 654England and WalesCited for the principle that the payee of a forged instrument has no right to receive payment on the instrument.
Kleinwort, Sons, and Co v Dunlop Rubber CompanyUnknownYes(1907) 97 LT 263England and WalesCited for the principle that a bank is entitled at common law to recover payment from the payee unless the payee has changed its position to its detriment.
The BrimnesQueen's BenchYes[1975] QB 929England and WalesCited for the proposition that payment is said to be complete when the creditor receives cash or has cash available on which he can draw if he so wishes, but found not relevant in this case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forged bank draft
  • Wrongful debit
  • General terms and conditions
  • SWIFT message
  • Complete and irreversible payment
  • Misrepresentation
  • Estoppel
  • Collecting bank
  • Drawee bank

15.2 Keywords

  • banking
  • cheques
  • forgery
  • debit
  • raffles money change
  • skandinaviska enskilda banken

16. Subjects

  • Banking
  • Cheques
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Banking Law
  • Contract Law
  • Agency Law