This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1996] SGHC 136
SUIT NO 1715 OF 1995
Between
Raymond Construction Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Low Yang Tong AGF Insurance (Singapore) Pte Limited |
… Defendant
grounds of decision
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. |
Raymond Construction Pte Ltd v Low Yang Tong and Another
[1996] SGHC 136
SUIT NO 1715 OF 1995
Lai Kew Chai J
11 July 1996
Lai Kew Chai J
11 July 1996
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 "Bocotra Construction Pte Ltd v AG (No.2) < 1995 >
lays down the rule of law that there must be compelling evidence
capable of proving fraud or unconscionability before an
injunction may be granted restraining payment under instruments
which contain unconditional and irrevocable obligations to pay on
demand. The concept of "unconscionability" to me
involves unfairness, as distinct from dishonesty or fraud, or
conduct of a kind so reprehensible or lacking in good faith that
a court of conscience would either restrain the party or refuse
to assist the party. Mere breaches of contract by the party in
question (in this case, the first defendant) would not by
themselves be unconscionable. Where breaches are alleged, there
would generally be (counter- allegations and) disputes when the
case is before the court. Therefore the first defendant's
breaches alone would not have sufficed. In my view, Royal Design
Studio (Thean J as he then was) and Kvaerner Singapore (Selvam J)
are illustrations of the circumstances where payments would have
been unconscionable." (Words within brackets are added)
lays down the rule of law that there must be compelling evidence
capable of proving fraud or unconscionability before an
injunction may be granted restraining payment under instruments
which contain unconditional and irrevocable obligations to pay on
demand. The concept of "unconscionability" to me
involves unfairness, as distinct from dishonesty or fraud, or
conduct of a kind so reprehensible or lacking in good faith that
a court of conscience would either restrain the party or refuse
to assist the party. Mere breaches of contract by the party in
question (in this case, the first defendant) would not by
themselves be unconscionable. Where breaches are alleged, there
would generally be (counter- allegations and) disputes when the
case is before the court. Therefore the first defendant's
breaches alone would not have sufficed. In my view, Royal Design
Studio (Thean J as he then was) and Kvaerner Singapore (Selvam J)
are illustrations of the circumstances where payments would have
been unconscionable." (Words within brackets are added)
10
11
12 The background
13
14 1. The contract completion date shall be 31 Dec 94.
15
16 (a) Electricity turn-on
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 The plaintiffs' case
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 Conclusion
65
66
67
< Judge >
< Judge >
Lai Kew Chai J |
Hee Theng Fong with Doris Lee [Hee Theng Fong & Co] for the plaintiffs
Raymond Chan with Tan Joo Seng [Chan Tan & Partners] for the first defendant
Tan Lee Cheng [Lee Bon Leong & Co] for the second defendant
Raymond Chan with Tan Joo Seng [Chan Tan & Partners] for the first defendant
Tan Lee Cheng [Lee Bon Leong & Co] for the second defendant
This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)