i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

LETTERS OF COMFORT REVISITED

H.S.B.C. v. Jurong

A. Introduction

Since the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. Malaysia Mining Corp. Bhd, 1 it would be understandable if the business community placed little or no reliance on letters of comfort save in the exceptional case where the terms evince an undeniably clear intention to create binding obligations. It might therefore seem somewhat surprising that an experienced and sophisticated institution should commence proceedings in the High Court of Singapore on the premise of a letter of awareness in Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. Jurong Engineering Ltd. 2 This could plausibly be explained as the bank’s last-ditch attempt to salvage an ill-fated transaction. Yet perhaps underlying this facile explanation there also exists a tangible and sanguine expectation that some legal consequences should attach to assurances given by a parent company in support of its subsidiary’s obligations. And such expectation did not seem to have been quelled by the weight of authorities to the contrary.3 The reasoning and result in this case reiterate the pivotal role played by the concept of contractual intent in the protection of parties’ expectations and provides us with a fresh opportunity to consider how such intent is to be ascertained.


LLOYD’S MARITIME AND COMMERCIAL LAW QUARTERLY

170

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.