DCW Monthly: March 2026
This month’s content highlights a familiar reality in letter of credit law & practice: structure alone does not guarantee
DCW Litigation Digest
Ryobi Tactics Pte Ltd. v. UES Holdings Pte Ltd.
Applicant sued, claiming that demands on four performance bonds were unconscionable.
Ryobi Tactics Pte Ltd. v. UES Holdings Pte Ltd.
[2019] SGHC 11 [Singapore]
Topics: Unconscionability; Injunction; Performance Bonds
Parties:
• Plaintiff/Subcontractor/Applicant – Ryobi Tactics Pte Ltd.
• Defendant/Contractor/Beneficiary – UES Holdings Pte Ltd.
• First Issuer – AXA Insurance Pte Ltd.
• Second Issuer – Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd.
[2019] SGHC 11 [Singapore]
Topics: Unconscionability; Injunction; Performance Bonds
Parties:
• Plaintiff/Subcontractor/Applicant – Ryobi Tactics Pte Ltd.
• Defendant/Contractor/Beneficiary – UES Holdings Pte Ltd.
• First Issuer – AXA Insurance Pte Ltd.
• Second Issuer – Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd.
Summary Note:
To secure its performance under four earth-works subcontracts regarding three distinct construction projects, Ryobi Tactics Pte Ltd. (Subcontractor/Applicant) obtained four performance bonds in favor of UES Holdings Pte Ltd. (Contractor/Beneficiary). AXA Insurance Pte Ltd. (First Issuer) issued one bond corresponding to the “Changi Project”, and Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd. (Second Issuer) issued three performance bonds corresponding to the Changi Project, the “Jurong Project” and the “Chestnut Project”. Cumulatively, the bonds were valued SGD 1,590,016.69.