Genuine Pte Ltd v HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd: Setting Aside Default Judgment in Bills of Exchange Action

Genuine Pte Ltd appealed against the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss its application to set aside a default judgment entered by HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, Dubai, for sums due under two bills of exchange. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the default judgment to be regular and that Genuine Pte Ltd failed to demonstrate a prima facie defense that raised triable issues. The court held that Genuine Pte Ltd's alleged set-off arrangement with Phoenix Global DMCC did not affect its liability to HSBC Bank Middle East Limited as the acceptor of the bills of exchange.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal to set aside default judgment in a bills of exchange action. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the judgment regular and no triable issues.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Genuine Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal dismissedLostSankar s/o Kailasa Thevar Saminathan, Tessa Low
HSBC Bank Middle East Limited, DubaiRespondent, PlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWonNathanael Lin, Marcus Chiang

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sankar s/o Kailasa Thevar SaminathanSterling Law Corporation
Tessa LowSterling Law Corporation
Nathanael LinRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Marcus ChiangRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff extended a banking facility to Phoenix Global DMCC.
  2. Phoenix requested the plaintiff to finance two bills of exchange drawn on the defendant.
  3. Plaintiff discounted the bills of exchange and credited the sums to Phoenix’s account.
  4. Defendant accepted the bills of exchange for payment.
  5. Defendant failed to pay the bills of exchange.
  6. Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant after letters of demand were ignored.
  7. Defendant claimed a set-off arrangement with Phoenix.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Genuine Pte Ltd v HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd, Dubai, Suit No 700 of 2020 (Registrar’s Appeal No 18 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 104

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Facility Offer Letter issued
Facility Offer Letter amended
First Bill of Exchange dated
Phoenix requested plaintiff to finance the first bill of exchange
Second Bill of Exchange dated
Phoenix requested plaintiff to finance the second bill of exchange
Plaintiff discounted the second bill of exchange
Defendant accepted the first bill of exchange for payment
Defendant accepted the second bill of exchange for payment
Plaintiff presented original copies of the Bills of Exchange
Plaintiff sent a letter of demand to the defendant
Defendant's representative sent an email to plaintiff's solicitors
Plaintiff sent a second letter of demand
Defendant's representative sent another email to plaintiff's solicitors
Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant
Writ of summons left at defendant’s registered address
Plaintiff entered judgment in default of appearance against the defendant
Defendant discovered the service of the writ
Defendant applied to set aside the Default Judgment
Assistant Registrar dismissed the defendant’s application
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting Aside Default Judgment
    • Outcome: The court held that the default judgment was regular and the defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie defense.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Regularity of judgment
      • Prima facie defense
  2. Liability under Bills of Exchange
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant's acceptance of the bills of exchange created a clear liability to pay, and the alleged set-off with Phoenix did not affect this liability to the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Acceptance of bill
      • Holder in due course
      • Set-off

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Payment of sums due under Bills of Exchange

9. Cause of Actions

  • Action on Bills of Exchange

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Law

11. Industries

  • Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 907SingaporeCited for the principles regarding setting aside a judgment entered in default of appearance.
Melanie Stanley and London Borough of Tower HamletsEnglish High CourtYes[2020] EWHC 1622 (QB)England and WalesCited by the defendant to argue that the default judgment was irregular due to COVID-19 restrictions, but distinguished by the court.
Wong Fook Heng v Amixco Asia Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 654SingaporeCited for the principle that a bill of exchange contract is distinct from the original and underlying contract.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 12 r 4 of the Rules of Court
O 13 r 8 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bills of Exchange
  • Default Judgment
  • Set-off
  • Holder in Due Course
  • Acceptance
  • Discounting
  • Remote Work Arrangements
  • COVID-19 Circuit Breaker Measures

15.2 Keywords

  • Bills of Exchange
  • Default Judgment
  • Singapore
  • Banking Facility
  • Set-off

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Bills of Exchange
  • Banking

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Bills of Exchange Law