DJY v DJZ & Anor

[2024] SGHC 301 High Court (General Division) 26 November 2024 • HC/OA 530/2022 • 49 min read

20 cases cited (18 SG, 2 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Injunctions Credit and Security — Bonds — Construction Credit and Security — Performance bond — Strict compliance with terms when making call on performance bond — Whether valid demand was made Credit and Security — Performance bond — Unconscionability exception — Whether call on performance bond unconscionable and ought to be restrained

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Credit and Security

Judges (1)

Wong Li Kok, Alex Delivered

Counsel (11)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Desiree Chong Ci En Counsel Defendant Foo Hsien Weng Counsel Claimant Hing Shan Shan Blossom Counsel Defendant Jill Ann Koh Ying (Xu Ying) Counsel Claimant Leau Jun Li (Phoebe) Counsel Claimant Lim Mingguan Counsel Defendant Lin Weiqi Wendy Counsel Claimant Lu En Hui, Sarah Counsel Defendant Wee Jong Xuan Counsel Claimant

Parties (3)

DKA Defendant DJY Claimant DJZ Defendant

Case Significance

DJY v DJZ and another [2024] SGHC 301 was decided by Wong Li Kok, Alex JC in the General Division of the High Court on 26 November 2024, with judgment reserved after a hearing on 8 October 2024. In Originating Application No 530 of 2022, the claimant DJY applied for an injunction to restrain the first defendant DJZ from demanding payment or receiving any sum under an irrevocable standby letter of credit dated 28 March 2022 (the "SBLC"), and to restrain the issuing bank (the second defendant, DKA) from effecting payment to DJZ under the SBLC. DJZ objected and sought dismissal with costs.

The case concerned Credit and Security law on bonds and performance bonds, including the construction of the instrument, whether strict compliance with the terms had been met so that a valid demand was made, and whether the call was unconscionable and ought to be restrained, together with Civil Procedure issues on injunctions. DJY also sought, via HC/SUM 2733/2024, to amend its prayers in OA 530. The claimant was represented by WongPartnership LLP, and the defendant by Drew & Napier LLC.

[2024] SGHC 301 explained

DJY v DJZ & Anor ([2024] SGHC 301) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 November 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Credit and Security. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 301 about?

DJY v DJZ & Anor ([2024] SGHC 301) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Injunctions”, “Credit and Security — Bonds — Construction”, “Credit and Security — Performance bond — Strict compliance with terms when making call on performance bond — Whether valid demand was made”, and “Credit and Security — Performance bond — Unconscionability exception — Whether call on performance bond unconscionable and ought to be restrained”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 301?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 301 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

DJY, which had contracted with DJZ to construct an offshore semi-submersible production platform, applied for an injunction to restrain DJZ from demanding or receiving payment under an irrevocable standby letter of credit and to restrain the issuing bank from making payment, raising issues of whether a valid demand had been made and whether a call on the instrument would be unconscionable. The General Division of the High Court agreed that the standby letter of credit was more analogous to a performance bond but found that DJZ had acted with restraint and that neither unconscionability nor fraud had been made out. The court dismissed the application for an injunction against DJZ and the bank.

What relief did the claimant seek in DJY v DJZ and another [2024] SGHC 301?

In DJY v DJZ and another [2024] SGHC 301, the claimant DJY sought an injunction to restrain the first defendant DJZ from demanding or receiving payment under an irrevocable standby letter of credit dated 28 March 2022, and to restrain the issuing bank from paying out.

What performance bond issues did [2024] SGHC 301 consider?

DJY v DJZ and another [2024] SGHC 301, decided by Wong Li Kok, Alex JC, addressed whether strict compliance with the standby letter of credit's terms meant a valid demand was made, and whether the call was unconscionable and should be restrained by injunction.

Cases Cited (20)

SG (1)

[1994] SGHC 225

SLR (17)

[1992] 2 SLR(R) 20 [1992] 3 SLR(R) 12 [1995] 2 SLR(R) 262 [1997] 1 SLR(R) 277 [1997] 2 SLR(R) 1020 [1999] 3 SLR(R) 44 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 92 [2011] 2 SLR 47 [2012] 3 SLR 125 [2012] 3 SLR 352 [2016] 3 SLR 557 [2019] 2 SLR 295 [2019] 4 SLR 1324 [2021] 3 SLR 571 [2024] 1 SLR 1054 [2024] 1 SLR 287

UK (2)

[2010] EWCA Civ 582 [2011] 1 WLR 2900

Cited By (2)

Referenced in

Legal concepts & references

Civil Procedure — Injunctions

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 301)