Trade Finance And Credit Enhancement
Singapore Court Blocks $2m SBLC Guarantee Call
A fresh Singapore High Court decision is a useful reminder of the one thing that really moves courts on standby letters of credit and demand guarantees: hard evidence of fraud. In this dispute, the court upheld an interim injunction preventing payment on a US$2 million advance payment standby instrument issued by Standard Chartered Bank, after finding the demand was made fraudulently.
What Happened
The dispute arose from a reservation arrangement signed in December 2021. A power project sponsor paid US$2 million to reserve a gas turbine. The bank guarantee was issued in the form of an irrevocable advance payment standby letter of credit for the same amount, governed by English law.
After later changes to the reserved turbine model and an extension of the reservation period, the beneficiary made a demand under the instrument. The applicant sought an injunction to prevent payment pending arbitration, arguing the demand was wrongful.
Instrument Type
A bank guarantee structured as an advance payment standby letter of credit. The demand had documentary conditions, including required written statements and supporting notices.
Core Dispute
Whether the beneficiary had a valid basis to call for a refund of a non-refundable reservation fee, and whether the underlying agreement had been breached or frustrated.
What The Court Decided
The court found the agreement was not a supply contract and did not obligate the beneficiary to purchase the turbine, nor obligate the applicant to refund the reservation fee absent a breach. On the record before it, the court concluded the beneficiary knew, or could not honestly believe, that its demand was valid, and the injunction was maintained pending arbitration.
Practical takeaway:
Autonomy stays intact. If you want to restrain payment, you need a narrow, evidence-backed route. In this decision, the route was fraud, and the court treated the required standard of proof as demanding.
What This Means For Trade Finance Operators
| Stakeholder |
What To Do Next |
| Applicants |
Treat standby wording like a risk product, not a template. Lock the demand conditions to objective triggers and documentary proof. Keep a clean audit trail on performance. |
| Beneficiaries |
Align your demand narrative with the contract record. A demand that stretches the bargain is where fraud arguments start. Submit exactly what the standby requires, nothing improvised. |
| Issuing / Confirming Banks |
Expect injunction applications in contentious projects. Documentary discipline and clear “complying presentation” logic still matter, even when courts get pulled in. |
| Deal Teams |
If a standby sits inside a broader project timeline, match the expiry, extension mechanics, and call windows to real decision points. Sloppy extensions create avoidable litigation angles. |
Where Financely Fits
Financely supports commercial clients in structuring and packaging SBLC requests so the instrument is acceptable to the beneficiary, consistent with the governing ruleset, and operationally workable in a bank process. Where regulated execution is required, delivery is coordinated through appropriately licensed firms under their own approvals.
Disclosure:
This post is informational and not legal advice. Standby disputes are fact-specific, and outcomes depend on governing law, ruleset, exact wording, and the evidence available at the injunction stage.
Need A Bankable SBLC Structure, Not A Broker Pitch
If you are preparing an SBLC request, start with beneficiary requirements, purpose, governing law, ruleset preference, and the exact call conditions you can support with documents.
FAQ
Can a court restrain a call on an SBLC?
Yes, but it is not routine. The autonomy principle is strong. Courts generally look for clear evidence of fraud (and in some jurisdictions, unconscionability for demand guarantees), assessed under the governing law.
What counts as fraud in a standby context?
A demand made with knowledge it is invalid, or where the beneficiary cannot honestly believe it is valid. Courts look for documentary contradictions, timing issues, and inconsistencies with the contract record.
Does “bank guarantee” vs “SBLC” change the analysis?
Often the commercial function is similar. What matters is the instrument’s wording, ruleset (if any), documentary conditions, and governing law, which together shape the autonomy and exceptions.
What is the simplest way to avoid a standby dispute?
Draft for reality. Make call conditions objective, documentary, and tied to the contract’s true risk points. Then keep the evidence file clean from day one.