HG Metal Manufacturing v Gayathri Steels: Breach of Contract & Guarantee Dispute

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, HG Metal Manufacturing Limited sued Gayathri Steels Pte Ltd for S$411,647.21 and US$998,763.03 for unpaid steel supplies, with Vashiharan Navaratnam and Sherine Sangeetha Navaratnam as guarantors. Gayathri Steels counterclaimed for breach of contract. Justice Choo Han Teck ruled in favor of HG Metal against Gayathri Steels, finding no valid defense or counterclaim. No orders were made against the second and third defendants.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff against the first defendant; no orders against the second and third defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case involving HG Metal's claim against Gayathri Steels for unpaid steel supplies and a counterclaim for breach of contract.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff supplied steel to the first defendant.
  2. The second and third defendants guaranteed the first defendant's debts to the plaintiff.
  3. The first defendant failed to pay for the steel supplied.
  4. The plaintiff claimed S$411,647.21 and US$998,763.03 for unpaid steel.
  5. The first defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract.
  6. The first defendant alleged a 'Profit Sharing Agreement' restructured payment obligations.
  7. The plaintiff denied the existence of a binding 'Profit Sharing Agreement'.

5. Formal Citations

  1. HG Metal Manufacturing Ltd v Gayathri Steels Pte Ltd and others, HC/Suit No 152 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 284

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First defendant became a customer of the plaintiff.
First defendant owed the plaintiff US$874,294.50 and S$264,714.16.
Letter of Guarantee signed.
September Guarantee signed.
Alleged Profit Sharing Agreement came into existence.
Various draft credit agreements were prepared.
Date until which the defendants claimed they were not liable for unpaid steel.
Suit No 152 of 2015 filed.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the first defendant breached the contract by failing to pay for the steel supplied.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Liability under Guarantee
    • Outcome: The court found that the July Guarantee had been superseded by the September Guarantee and therefore made no orders against the second and third defendants.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court found that the defence on estoppel had no merits.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Debt

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Manufacturing
  • Steel Industry

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 12Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Steel
  • Guarantee
  • Credit Agreement
  • Profit Sharing Agreement
  • Outstanding Sums
  • MB Account

15.2 Keywords

  • steel
  • guarantee
  • breach of contract
  • Singapore
  • commercial dispute

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Sale of Goods
  • Guarantees
  • Commercial Dispute