PMA Credit Opportunities Fund v Tantono Tiny: Summary Judgment & Guarantee Enforcement
In PMA Credit Opportunities Fund and others v Tantono Tiny, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal against an Assistant Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, PMA Credit Opportunities Fund, PMA Temple Fund, Diversified Asian Strategies Fund, Arch Advisory Limited, Goldman Sachs Foreign Exchange (Singapore) Pte, Standard Chartered Bank, and Intertrust (Singapore) Limited, against the defendant, Tantono Tiny, the representative of the estate of Lim Susanto. The plaintiffs sought S$133,478,558.52 under a Deed of Personal Guarantee. Woo Bih Li J dismissed the appeal, finding no triable issue to warrant setting aside the summary judgment.
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
Singapore High Court case concerning summary judgment against the estate of Lim Susanto for a debt guarantee. Appeal dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Chartered Bank | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| PMA Credit Opportunities Fund | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| PMA Temple Fund | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Diversified Asian Strategies Fund | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Arch Advisory Limited | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Goldman Sachs Foreign Exchange (Singapore) Pte | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Intertrust (Singapore) Limited | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Tantono Tiny | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- PMA Credit Opportunities Fund extended a US$140 million syndicated loan facility to Palm Optics Enterprise Pte Ltd.
- Susanto furnished a Personal Guarantee (PG) in favor of the Security Agent for the beneficiaries of the loan.
- The Borrower defaulted on its obligation to pay US$1,508,000 of principal and US$2,876,001.93 of interest.
- Demands were made on Susanto for payment of US$122,780,000 and interest of US$6,656,517.27.
- Susanto passed away, and his widow, Tiny, was substituted as the defendant in the action.
- Tiny claimed the PG was not binding because Susanto could not read English and the terms were not explained.
- Tiny also claimed the PG was not binding under Indonesian law due to variations in the Facility Agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- PMA Credit Opportunities Fund and others v Tantono Tiny (representative of the estate of Lim Susanto, deceased), Suit No 671 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 18 of 2011), [2011] SGHC 89
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deed of Personal Guarantee No 284 signed | |
| Facility Agreement signed | |
| US$56 million drawn down under Facility Agreement | |
| US$2 million drawn down under Facility Agreement | |
| US$70 million drawn down under Facility Agreement | |
| Borrower defaulted on payment under Facility Agreement | |
| Security Agent demanded payment from Borrower | |
| Security Agent demanded payment from Borrower | |
| Security Agent demanded payment from Susanto | |
| Security Agent demanded payment from Susanto | |
| Action commenced against Susanto | |
| Susanto entered an appearance | |
| Susanto passed away | |
| Respondents received letter from Borrower requesting discharge of PG | |
| Order of Court to substitute Tiny as Defendant | |
| Order of Court varied | |
| Defence filed | |
| Summons No 4095 of 2010 applied for summary judgment against the Appellant | |
| Assistant Registrar granted summary judgment in favour of the Respondents | |
| Appeal heard and dismissed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Guarantee
- Outcome: The court held that the guarantee was enforceable, finding no triable issue to warrant setting aside the summary judgment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of guarantee under Indonesian law
- Mistake in executing guarantee
- Failure to explain guarantee terms
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court upheld the summary judgment, finding that the defendant failed to establish a triable issue.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Triable issue
- Unpleaded defence
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guarantee
- Indemnity
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Litigation
- Debt Recovery
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Leong Huat v Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party challenging an Order 14 application is not entitled to rely on any unpleaded defence. |
| United States Trading Co Pte Ltd v Ting Boon Aun | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 981 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party challenging an Order 14 application is not entitled to rely on any unpleaded defence. |
| Lin Securities (Pte) v Noone & Co Sdn Bhd | Unknown | Yes | [1989] 1 MLJ 321 | Malaysia | Cited as representing the previous principle which did not bind the defendant to the four corners of his pleading. |
| Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the principle that a party is only bound by the four corners of his pleadings at the trial of the action, but not in Order 14 proceedings. |
| HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd v Elchemi Assets Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 67 | Singapore | Cited for reiterating the decision in Lim Leong Huat. |
| Rankine Bernadette Adeline v Chenet Finance Limited | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 79 | Singapore | Mentioned as raising the same issue of unpleaded defenses in summary judgment applications. |
| Miliangos v Frank (Textiles) Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1976] AC 443 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the principle of per incuriam. |
| “The Hung Vuong-2” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 11 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should refrain from making a determination on the basis of affidavit evidence where the opinions of experts conflict on foreign law. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Law No 30 of 2004 | Indonesia |
| Indonesian Civil Code | Indonesia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Personal Guarantee
- Summary Judgment
- Facility Agreement
- Syndicated Loan
- Security Agent
- Beneficiaries
- Spousal Consent
- Triable Issue
- Indonesian Law
- Notarisation
15.2 Keywords
- guarantee
- summary judgment
- indonesian law
- singapore
- contract
- loan
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Deed of Personal Guarantee | 80 |
| Guarantee | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Banking and Finance | 50 |
| Commercial Law | 40 |
| Spousal Consent | 40 |
| Commercial Disputes | 30 |
| Corporate Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Banking
- Finance
- Guarantees
- Civil Litigation