Hup Seng Lee Pte Ltd v Jaclyn Patrina Reutens: Injunction against Performance Bond Call
In Hup Seng Lee Pte Ltd v Jaclyn Patrina Reutens, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Hup Seng Lee Pte Ltd for an injunction to restrain Jaclyn Patrina Reutens from receiving $146,300 from AXA Insurance Pte Ltd under a performance bond. The court dismissed the application, finding that Hup Seng Lee Pte Ltd had failed to establish a prima facie case of unconscionability. The court also ordered costs against Hup Seng Lee Pte Ltd and AXA Insurance Pte Ltd jointly and severally.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Hup Seng Lee's application for an injunction to restrain Jaclyn Patrina Reutens from receiving payment under a performance bond.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hup Seng Lee Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | Zaminder Singh Gill |
| Jaclyn Patrina Reutens | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | Gan Kam Yuin |
| AXA Insurance Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | Costs ordered against non-party | Other | Lennon Wu Leong Chong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Zaminder Singh Gill | Hilborne Law LLC |
| Gan Kam Yuin | Bih Li & Lee LLP |
| Lennon Wu Leong Chong | Gurbani & Co LLC |
4. Facts
- The defendant engaged the plaintiff to build a terrace house at the Premises.
- The plaintiff was to procure a performance bond equivalent to 10% of the contract sum.
- The plaintiff procured a performance bond for $146,300 issued by AXA in favour of the defendant.
- The parties got into a dispute over alleged defects in the works.
- The defendant demanded payment of $146,300 pursuant to the Performance Bond.
- The plaintiff filed an application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from receiving the money.
- AXA had not made payment to the defendant as of the hearing date.
5. Formal Citations
- Hup Seng Lee Pte Ltd v Jaclyn Patrina Reutens, Originating Summons No 1031 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 249
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tender document dated | |
| Letter of Award dated | |
| Performance bond issued | |
| Letter demanding payment of $146,300 sent to AXA | |
| AXA sent a letter to the plaintiff stating that it was obligated to make payment to the defendant | |
| AXA acknowledged receipt of the letter of demand | |
| BLL wrote to AXA stating that the defendant had not yet received the payment | |
| Gurbani & Co LLC replied with a letter stating that it was taking instructions on the matter | |
| Originating Summons filed for an injunction | |
| Hearing before the judge | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Unconscionability
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish even a prima facie case of unconscionability.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 3 SLR 352
- [1995] 2 SLR(R) 262
- [2011] 2 SLR 47
- Costs against non-party
- Outcome: The court ordered costs and disbursements fixed at $4,000 to be paid by the plaintiff and AXA jointly and severally.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 542
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunctive Relief
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 352 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the only way to restrain a call on a performance bond is to apply to court for an injunction. |
| Bocotra Construction Pte Ltd and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 262 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the two distinct grounds upon which a court may grant an injunction restraining a beneficiary of an on-demand performance bond from calling on the bond are fraud and unconscionability. |
| JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 47 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the two distinct grounds upon which a court may grant an injunction restraining a beneficiary of an on-demand performance bond from calling on the bond are fraud and unconscionability. |
| DB Trustees (Hong Kong) Ltd v Consult Asia Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 542 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overarching rule with regard to ordering costs against a non-party in court proceedings is that it must, in the circumstances of the case, be just to do so. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Performance Bond
- Unconscionability
- Injunction
- Defects
- On-demand performance bond
15.2 Keywords
- Performance bond
- Injunction
- Construction defects
- Singapore High Court
- Unconscionability
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Credit and Security
- Performance Bond
- Injunctions