Henny Sutanto v Chandra Suwandi: Cheque Presentation & Bills of Exchange Act

In Henny Sutanto v Chandra Suwandi, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Mdm Henny Sutanto's appeal against Mr Chandra Suwandi. Mdm Henny sued Mr Chandra Suwandi with respect to three cheques signed by the latter’s sister-in-law. The court held that Mdm Henny's failure to present the three cheques for payment was fatal to her claim, as required under Section 45 of the Bills of Exchange Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Henny Sutanto sued Chandra Suwandi over dishonored cheques. The court dismissed the claim due to failure to present the cheques for payment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Henny SutantoAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Chandra Suwandi (trading as Global Standard Marketing)RespondentIndividualClaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Mun HooiLee Mun Hooi and Co
Wong Nan SheeLee Mun Hooi and Co
Quek Mong HuaLee and Lee
Julian TayLee and Lee

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Tani, Chandra's sister-in-law, was authorized to operate Global's bank account.
  2. Mdm Tani borrowed $670,000.00 from Mdm Henny between October 2001 and June 2003.
  3. Mdm Tani issued three cheques drawn on Global’s UOB account to repay the loans.
  4. Mdm Tani instructed UOB to stop payment on the cheques.
  5. Mdm Henny did not present the three cheques for payment.
  6. Mdm Henny claimed Mdm Tani told her the cheques would be dishonoured if presented.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Henny Sutanto v Chandra Suwandi (trading as Global Standard Marketing), CA 15/2005, Suit 275/2003, [2005] SGCA 45

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Chandra authorised Mdm Tani to operate Global’s bank account.
Mdm Tani borrowed $670,000.00 from Mdm Henny between October 2001 and June 2003.
Mdm Tani issued a cheque for $206,000.00 to Mdm Henny.
Mdm Tani issued a cheque for $154,500.00 to Mdm Henny.
Mdm Tani issued a cheque for $154,500.00 to Mdm Henny.
Mdm Henny instituted legal proceedings against Mdm Tani and Chandra.
Mdm Henny obtained judgment in default of appearance against Mdm Tani.
Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Presentation for Payment
    • Outcome: The court held that the payee was required to present the cheques for payment and that no exceptions to this requirement were established.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Repayment of loans

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yeoman Credit Ltd v GregoryN/AYes[1963] 1 WLR 343N/AIllustrates the requirement that cheques must be presented for payment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Cheque
  • Bills of Exchange Act
  • Presentation for payment
  • Dishonour
  • Waiver of presentment

15.2 Keywords

  • Cheque
  • Bills of Exchange Act
  • Presentation for payment
  • Singapore
  • Banking

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bills of Exchange Law90
Commercial Law70
Contract Law60

16. Subjects

  • Bills of Exchange
  • Negotiable Instruments