| Up until now, in Singapore it seems reasonably clear that a bank documents checker is not obliged to honour its payment undertaking against a presentation which, though conforming as to the specified documents, does not appear compliant with a non-documentary clause in the credit. But on a recent appeal, the Singapore High Court decided that that position does not avail the issuing bank. It is argued below that this conclusion is a recipe for confusion and uncertainty: insofar as it in effect requires payment to be made against a presentation that is otherwise apparently irregular, that conclusion unwarrantably exposes issuing banks to a flood of potential charge of wrongful honour. Such a patently unsettling situation perforce invites a detailed examination of the entire spectrum of the documents checker’s obligation with regard to non-documentary stipulations in letters of credit. Further, the related question as to the obligation of the examining bank where a re-presentation to the knowledge of the presenter contains a discrepancy, of which it has previously been advised, is critically analysed. |