Marketlend v QBE Insurance: Trade Credit Insurance, Assignment, Consent, Estoppel, Admissibility of Evidence, Non-Disclosure, Risk

1. Case Overview

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

4. Counsels

4. Facts

1. Marketlend sought to recover US$9,035,365.38 under a trade credit insurance policy issued by QBE to Novita.
2. Marketlend claimed entitlement under the policy via a power of attorney granted by Novita.
3. AETL was added as a co-claimant as a trustee of a securitized trust that funded Marketlend's facilities to Novita.
4. The claims related to eight alleged trades between Novita and various buyers.
5. QBE denied liability, alleging Marketlend lacked standing, breach of assignment terms, and material non-disclosures.
6. QBE contended the alleged trades were fictitious and lacked evidence of genuine physical transactions.
7. QBE argued Novita failed to provide requested documents to verify the claims.

5. Formal Citations

1. Marketlend Pty Ltd and another v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 16 of 2023, [2025] SGHC(I) 1

6. Timeline

7. Legal Issues

1. Assignment of Rights Under Insurance Policy
   • Outcome: The court held that there was an assignment of the Policy in favour of Marketlend, that such assignment constituted a breach of clause 2 of the Policy, and that QBE is therefore entitled to avoid liability under the Policy as against both claimants.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Sub-Issues:
     • Validity of assignment without insurer's consent
     • Effect of unauthorized assignment on policy liability
2. Breach of Condition Precedent
   • Outcome: The court held that there had been a significant failure to comply with the terms of clause 10(b), 10(c) and/or 8 of the Policy Wording and that, given that compliance with such provisions is a condition precedent to any liability of QBE under the Policy, it follows that QBE is not liable and that the claimants’ claims must be rejected.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Sub-Issues:
     • Failure to provide requested documents
     • Failure to cooperate with insurer's investigation
3. Proof of Insured Debt
   • Outcome: The court held that the claimants have failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Alleged Trades were genuine physical trades in the sense stated above. It follows that the claimants’ claims must, in any event, be dismissed even if the court is wrong in respect of its earlier conclusions with regard to the breaches of clause 2, clauses 10(b) and (c) and clause 8 of the Policy Wording.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Sub-Issues:
     • Existence of genuine physical trades
     • Admissibility of transaction documents
4. Entitlement to Avoid Policy
   • Outcome: The court held that given its conclusions that the Alleged Sealoud Trade and the Alleged NSJ Trade were both fictitious, that such fact was material to the risk but was never disclosed to QBE, and that QBE would never have agreed to the issuance of the Policy if they had been told of the same, it follows that QBE was entitled to avoid the Policy.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Sub-Issues:
     • Material non-disclosure
     • Misrepresentation

8. Remedies Sought

1. Monetary Damages
2. Interest
3. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

• Breach of Contract
• Claim under Insurance Policy

10. Practice Areas

• Commercial Litigation
• Insurance Litigation

11. Industries

• Finance
• Insurance
• Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

13. Applicable Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

• Insurance
• Contract
• Evidence
• Commercial Law