United Petroleum Trading Ltd v Trafigura Pte Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Chua Lee Ming J,Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD |
| Judgment Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 48 of 2021 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | High Court |
[2021] SGHC(A) 13
Appellate Division of the High Court
Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD and Chua Lee Ming J
Civil Appeal No 48 of 2021
Alain Abraham Johns (Alain A Johns Partnership) for the appellant;
Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Michael SC (Kenneth Tan Partnership) (instructed), Loh Wai Yue, Mohammad Haireez bin Mohameed JufferieandChan Ji Kin Thaddaeus (Incisive Law LLC) for the respondent.
Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 239 (refd)
Bunga Melati 5, The [2012] 4 SLR 546 (folld)
Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit [2001] 1 SLR(R) 856; [2001] 3 SLR 10 (distd)
Guardian Ocean Cargoes Ltd v Banco do Brasil [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep 152 (refd)
IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd v Saimee bin Jumaat [2020] 2 SLR 272 (folld)
Sami v Hamit [2018] EWHC 1400 (Ch) (refd)
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) ss 6(1)(a), 26(2)
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out — Recipient alleging that claims were time-barred — Whether pleadings should be struck out — Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Limitation of Actions — When time begins to run — Payor seeking recovery of moneys on basis of total failure of consideration — When cause of action for restitution of unjust enrichment on basis of total failure of consideration accrued — Section 6(1)(a) Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)
The appellant, United Petroleum Trading Ltd, alleged that three sums of money were paid to the respondent, Trafigura Pte Ltd, as initial margin pursuant to an agreement under which the respondent had agreed to trade futures contracts for gasoline on the appellant's behalf (the “alleged agreement”). The appellant sought recovery of the three sums on the basis that, inter alia, there had been a total failure of consideration because the respondent had failed, omitted and/or neglected to trade on the appellant's behalf.
The first two sums of money had been paid on 25 and 30 September 2013 respectively. Two invoices (“the Invoices”), which the appellant claimed related to these sums of money, were issued on 17 October 2013. The appellant commenced the suit on 16 October 2019, more than six years after the two payments had been received by the respondent.
The respondent applied to strike out, inter alia, the claims for these two sums on the basis that the claims were time-barred. For the purposes of its striking-out application, the respondent was prepared to assume that the alleged agreement was entered into, that the moneys were paid pursuant to the alleged agreement, and that the alleged agreement was void. The assistant registrar (“Assistant Registrar”) struck out the claims for the first two sums on the basis that they were time-barred. The High Court judge dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision. The appellant appealed to the Appellate Division of the High Court.
It was common ground that the appellant's claims based on a total failure of consideration were founded on contract and that, pursuant to s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) (“Limitation Act”), the limitation period was six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
The appellant made three submissions. First, the cause of action in restitution for unjust enrichment accrued only when the failure of consideration occurred, which was after the payments had been received by the respondent. Second, the Invoices constituted acknowledgments of its right of action to recover the two sums, and that, pursuant to s 26(2) of the Limitation Act, the right of action was deemed to have accrued on the dates of the Invoices. Third, there was no real value in striking out the claims for the first two sums as the claim for the third sum was proceeding to trial.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) If the claims for the two sums were time-barred, the claims would be legally unsustainable and ought to be struck out; the defence of limitation would defeat the claims even if all the facts alleged by the appellant were proved: at [4].
(2) The cause of action accrued only when the failure of consideration occurred. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Restitution
...Finance Ltd v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil [2022] 1 SLR 136 at [168]. 61 Esben Finance Ltd v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil [2022] 1 SLR 136 at [172]. 62 [2021] 2 SLR 1232. 63 Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed. 64 United Petroleum Trading Ltd v Trafigura Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 1232 at [6]. 65 United Petroleum Trading Ltd v T......