IMC Transworld Pte Ltd v Ashapura Minechem Ltd: Summary Judgment for Guarantee Payment Obligations

In IMC Transworld Pte Ltd v Ashapura Minechem Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore granted summary judgment on 6 October 2023 in favour of IMC Transworld Pte Ltd against Ashapura Minechem Limited. The case concerned a guarantee provided by Ashapura Minechem for the payment obligations of Al Rock Mining FZE under a Contract of Affreightment. After Al Rock Mining failed to satisfy arbitration awards, IMC Transworld sought recovery from Ashapura Minechem under the guarantee. The court determined that the guarantee operated as an 'on demand' guarantee, entitling IMC Transworld to summary judgment. The court ordered costs to be in the cause, with such costs awarded to the claimant on an indemnity basis under the terms of the Guarantee.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Summary judgment on the merits be entered against the defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Summary judgment granted to IMC Transworld against Ashapura Minechem for failing to honor a guarantee for Al Rock Mining's debt. The court found the guarantee was an 'on demand' guarantee.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
IMC Transworld Pte LtdClaimantCorporationJudgment for ClaimantWon
Ashapura Minechem LimitedDefendantCorporationSummary Judgment Entered AgainstLost
Al Rock Mining FZEChartererCorporationArbitration Awards Not SatisfiedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. IMC Transworld Pte Ltd and Ashapura Minechem Limited entered into a guarantee agreement.
  2. Ashapura Minechem guaranteed payment obligations of Al Rock Mining FZE to IMC Transworld under a Contract of Affreightment.
  3. Disputes arose under the Contract of Affreightment, leading to arbitration proceedings in London.
  4. IMC Transworld obtained arbitration awards in its favor against Al Rock Mining.
  5. Al Rock Mining failed to satisfy the arbitration awards.
  6. IMC Transworld sought recovery from Ashapura Minechem under the guarantee.
  7. The defendant refused to make payment under the Guarantee.

5. Formal Citations

  1. IMC Transworld Pte Ltd v Ashapura Minechem Ltd, Originating Claim No 232 of 2023 (Summons No 2359 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 357

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract of Affreightment signed
Guarantee entered into
Disputes arose under the Contract of Affreightment
Final Arbitration Award issued
Costs Award issued
Payment demanded under Arbitration Awards
Payment demanded from defendant pursuant to Guarantee
Defendant contended Arbitration Awards did not bind it
Claimant obtained leave to enforce the Arbitration Awards
Enforcement Order served on the Charterer
Judgment served on the Charterer
Another demand sent to the defendant's Indian solicitors
Defendant raised objections
Proceedings commenced in Originating Claim No 232 of 2023
Claimant applied for summary judgment
Summary judgment granted in favour of the claimant
Grounds of decision issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforceability of Guarantee
    • Outcome: The court held that the Guarantee operated as an 'on demand' guarantee, making the defendant liable upon the claimant’s demand.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of guarantee terms
      • Whether the guarantee is an 'on demand' guarantee or a simple guarantee
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] 4 SLR 1276
      • [2023] SGHCR 1
      • [2009] 3 SLR(R) 689
      • [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21
      • [2016] EWHC 2957 (Comm)
      • (1935) 53 CLR 643
      • [2023] SGCA 39
  2. Summary Judgment
    • Outcome: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the claimant.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] 4 SLR 1276

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Summary Judgment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Guarantee

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2018] 4 SLR 1276SingaporeCited for the principles for the grant of summary judgment.
TA Private Capital Security Agent Ltd and another v UD Trading Group Holding Pte Ltd and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2023] SGHCR 1SingaporeCited for the definition of an 'on demand' guarantee.
PT Jaya Sumpiles Indonesia and another v Kristle Trading Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 689SingaporeCited for the principle that an arbitration award against a principal debtor does not constitute evidence of a surety’s liability.
Re Kitchin Ex p YoungN/AYesLR 17 Ch D 668N/ACited for the principle that an arbitration award obtained by a creditor against the principal debtor does not constitute evidence that may be used to establish a surety’s liability.
Compania Sudamericana de Fletes SA v African Continental Bank Ltd (The Rosarina)N/AYes[1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21N/ACited as an example of a case where the courts have allowed a guarantee that contained an express promise by the surety to pay “up to the amount stated above in accordance with any arbitration award rendered in London (under the terms of the charterparty)”.
Bitumen Invest AS v Richmond Mercantile Ltd FZCHigh Court of JusticeYes[2016] EWHC 2957 (Comm)England and WalesCited for the principle that the certification of any amount as due as a consequence of non-fulfilment of the principal debtor’s obligations must go, inevitably, to liability since, otherwise, the certification of sums as due is meaningless.
Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia LtdHigh CourtYes(1935) 53 CLR 643AustraliaCited for the principle that a certificate signed by the Manager stating the balance of principal and interest due to you by the customer, shall be conclusive evidence of the indebtedness at such date of the customer to you.
Lim Siau Hing @ Lim Kim Hoe and another v Compass Consulting Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2023] SGCA 39SingaporeCited for the principle that it remains an open question whether evidence of subsequent conduct may be admitted for the purposes of contractual interpretation.
M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura AkihikoHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 325SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will not grant permission to defend if the defendant only provides a mere assertion, contained in an affidavit, of a given situation which forms the basis of his defence.
Prosperous Credit Pte Ltd v Gen Hwa Franchise International Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 53SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will not grant permission to defend if the defendant only provides a mere assertion, contained in an affidavit, of a given situation which forms the basis of his defence.
Akfel Commodities Turkey Holding Anonim Sirketi v Townsend, AdamCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 412SingaporeCited for the principle that even in the absence of a specific triable issue, there are other reasons why the matter should go to trial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Guarantee
  • Contract of Affreightment
  • Arbitration Award
  • On demand guarantee
  • Primary obligor
  • Charter party
  • Summary judgment

15.2 Keywords

  • guarantee
  • summary judgment
  • arbitration
  • contract of affreightment
  • shipping
  • on demand guarantee

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Arbitration
  • Guarantees
  • Civil Procedure
  • Shipping Law