Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering: Guarantee, Contractual Terms & Pleading

Renault SAS, the claimant, sued Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd, the defendant, in the Singapore International Commercial Court, under a Deed of Guarantee. The case involved two originating applications, OA 3/2023 and OA 9/2023, both claiming €5,250,025.61. The central legal issue was whether the principal debtor, Alvance Aluminium Wheels, had any liability to Renault. The court ruled in favor of Renault in OA 9/2023, finding Liberty Engineering liable under the guarantee due to Alvance's failure to make a payment. OA 3/2023 was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Claim in Originating Application No 9 of 2023 succeeds, while Originating Application No 3 of 2023 is dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Renault SAS sues Liberty Engineering under a guarantee. The court addressed contractual terms and pleading issues, ruling in favor of Renault.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Roger GilesInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Renault provided financial support to Liberty Wheels, a subsidiary of LEG, to acquire AR Industries.
  2. A Financial Services Agreement (FSA) was signed between Renault and LEG.
  3. LEG provided a Guarantee to Renault for the financial support.
  4. Liberty Wheels was placed under redressment judiciare and later liquidation judiciare.
  5. Liberty Wheels failed to make a payment due on 1 June 2023.
  6. Renault claimed the outstanding amount from LEG under the Guarantee.
  7. LEG argued that Liberty Wheels was not a party to the FSA and therefore had no liability.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 3 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(I) 6
  2. Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 9 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(I) 6

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Deed of Guarantee signed
AR Industries placed under redressment judiciare
Financial Services Agreement signed between Renault and LEG
Court adopted the sale plan and made orders to give effect to it
Liberty Wheels France created
Guarantee dated
Renault paid €1.5m to Liberty Wheels
Renault paid €1.5m to Liberty Wheels
Renault paid €2.5 million to Liberty Wheels
Renault paid €1.5 million to Liberty Wheels
Alvance placed under redressment judiciare by the Paris Commercial Court
Renault issued a letter of demand for payment by LEG of the sum of €7 million
Renault commenced Suit 1 in the High Court
Renault filed a proof of claim with Alvance’s court-appointed creditors’ representatives
Paris Commercial Court approved a plan to sell the operations and assets of Alvance to a third party
Redressment judiciare converted into liquidation judiciare
Notification of Admitted Claims
Renault commenced OA 3 in the SICC
Suit 1 was heard
Judgment was given in Suit 1
Payment of €1,750,000 due
Renault commenced OA 9 in the SICC
Proceedings were heard
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Liability under Guarantee
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant liable under the guarantee for the outstanding amount due to the failure of the principal debtor to make a payment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Enforceability of guarantee
      • Interpretation of guarantee terms
      • Acceleration of debt
  2. Contractual Interpretation
    • Outcome: The court interpreted the Financial Services Agreement to determine the obligations of the parties and whether a separate contract existed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of Financial Services Agreement
      • Definition of 'Purchaser'
      • Substitution clause
  3. Pleading Requirements
    • Outcome: The court found that the claimant had adequately pleaded a separate contract, even though it was not a model pleading.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sufficiency of pleading a separate contract
      • Material facts
      • Legal conclusions

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Guarantee

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Automobile

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Renault SAS v Liberty Engineering Group Pte LtdSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2023] 4 SLR 152SingaporeCited as the Suit 1 Judgment, where the claimant's claim was dismissed. The current judgment distinguishes itself from the Suit 1 Judgment.
Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Limited v the Bank of India and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1308SingaporeCited for the principle that interest is discretionary.
MK (Project Management) Ltd v Baker Marine Energy Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 823SingaporeCited for the principle that it is sufficient for the pleader to state the material facts, and the legal conclusion to be drawn from them need not be stated.
Acute Result Holdings Ltd v CGS-CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly known as CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd)High CourtYes[2023] 5 SLR 406SingaporeCited for the principle that a pleader’s duty is to plead facts not law.
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 332SingaporeCited regarding the requirements for an identifiable agreement that is complete and certain.
Travista Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine and othersHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 474SingaporeCited for the principle that in construing a contract, all parts of it must be given effect where possible, and no part of it should be treated as inoperative or surplus.
Court of Cassation dated 15 November 1994, First Civil ChamberCourt of CassationYesNo 92-18.981FranceCited regarding adherence to a contract, but distinguished by the court.
Court of Cassation dated 21 June 2018, Third Civil ChamberCourt of CassationYesNo 17-18.738FranceCited regarding the enforcement of a substitution provision, but the court found that the FSA did not provide for substitution.
Court of Cassation dated 19 March 1997, Third Civil ChamberCourt of CassationYesNo 95-12.47FranceCited regarding the distinction between substitution and assignment, but the court found that the FSA did not provide for substitution.
Court of Cassation dated 13 May 2003, Commercial ChamberCourt of CassationYesNo 00-15.642FranceCited regarding the waiver of the unenforceability of the forfeiture of the term, but the court found that the reliance on the decision was misplaced.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Article L.642-9 of the French Commercial CodeFrance
Article L.643-1 of the French Commercial CodeFrance
Article 1172 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1113 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1114 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1118 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1216 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1205 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1206 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1208 of the French Civil CodeFrance
Article 1103 of the French Civil CodeFrance

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Guarantee
  • Financial Support Agreement
  • Purchaser
  • Redressment Judiciare
  • Liquidation Judiciare
  • Bankruptcy Event
  • First Demand Guarantee
  • Obligations
  • Consensualisme
  • Substitution
  • Assignment

15.2 Keywords

  • Guarantee
  • Contractual Terms
  • Pleading
  • Financial Support
  • Liberty Engineering
  • Renault
  • Alvance
  • French Law

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Guarantees
  • Civil Procedure