JCW

[Loan Agreement – denial of signature and handwriting expert; stamping issue] Alvin was the counsel for the Plaintiff in this case. The High Court granted Summary Judgment against the Defendant in this case in respect of a moneylending transaction vide Loan Agreements. The key points raised in the High Court Grounds of Judgment include:   (i)Signature Authentication: The Defendant's denial of his signature on the loan agreements is deemed untenable due to the absence of a police report or a report by a handwriting expert suggesting forgery (refer to para 18 of the Grounds). (ii)Reliance on Loan Agreement Terms: Despite a lack of other supporting evidence regarding the disbursement of the loan sum to the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the terms of the loan agreement, which state that the loan sums were disbursed and acknowledged by the Defendant (refer to para 20 of the Grounds). (iii) Basis of Cause of Action: The Plaintiff's cause of action does not depend on whether the loans are listed in the assets and liabilities of the Deceased's Last Will; rather, it is based on the loan agreements. The Plaintiff's right to commence the action is substantiated under Section 8(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956 and Section 59 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 (refer to paras 21 and 22 of the Grounds). (iv) Late stamping: The delay in stamping on the loan agreements  is not considered a valid defence to the Plaintiff's claim (refer to para 31 of the Grounds). (v) Anticipatory Breach and Repudiation: The Defendant's failure to repay the loan in accordance with the repayment timeline agreement is construed as an anticipatory breach and repudiation of the entire obligation to pay the full loan amount. The Plaintiff is justified in accepting this repudiation and claiming immediate payment (refer to paras 32 and 33 of the Grounds)