Rikei Corporation v. Kota Finance Co Ltd

HCA015065/1983

BETWEEN -

_____________

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jones in Chambers.

Date of hearing: 8 February 1984

Date of delivery of judgment: 8 February 1984

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. This is an application for summary judgment under 0.14. The plaintiff's claim is for the sum of US$193,900.00 in respect of six irrevocable Letters of Credit issued by the defendant covering the shipment of electronic components shipped by the plaintiff to Primime Co. Ltd. (drawee). In the alternative the plaintiff claims the return of the documents of titles.

2. The plaintiff maintains that all the documents have been presented to the defendant that the drafts were accepted by the drawee and were in turn confirmed to the defendant.

3. Apart from Letters of Credit No. 852 and 856 there is documentary evidence before the Court by way of telexes to support the plaintiff's claim. Paragraph 8 (a) and (b) of the affirmation of Mr. Wong Shi Man a bills clerk employed by the defendant states:-

"8.    (a)     While it is correct that Primime Company Limited, the Applicant (hereinafter called "the Applicant") under each of the said six Letters of Credits, had indicated to the Defendant that it would accent the bills of exchange drawn by or on behalf of the Plaintiff upon the Applicant, which were to be treated as usuance drafts by the Applicant for the purposes of the said Letters of Credit, the Applicant has not signed its acceptance in writing on the said bills of exchange and returned the same with such written and signed acceptances to the Defendant up to now and the Defendant has not been and is not able to act upon, or process the said bills of exchange or to determine the maturity dates for payment thereof.

(b)     Further, without the said written and signed acceptance of the Applicant, the Defendant is unable to hold the Applicant to any liability for re-imbursement of any amounts payable under the said Letters of Credit.".

The paragraph as submitted by Mr. Ramanathan is inconsistent with paragraph 6 of the defence. No exhibits were produced by the defendant to support the contention made in paragraph 6(b) of the defence. Various allegation of non conformity have been raised in the defence, but I do not find upon the evidence produced that they have any substance. Even had I held a contrary view I accept that there has been waiver by the defendant.

4. The evidence against the defendant in this case is overwhelming. No arguable defence has been put forward by the defendant.

5. Accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to judgment with interest at 12% and costs.

Representation:

Mr. Kumar Ramanathan (Johnson, Stokes & Master) for Plaintiff.

Mr. Leo Remedios (John Ip & Co.) for Defendant.