Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher Teck

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2009
• Date: 06 November 2009
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 10 of 2009
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Goh Suan Hee

Plaintiff

and

Teo Cher Teck

Defendant

[2009] SGCA 52

Chao Hick Tin JA

and

V K Rajah JA

Civil Appeal No 10 of 2009

Court of Appeal

Conflict of Laws–Choice of jurisdiction–Forum non conveniens–Whether claimant entitled to rely on juridical advantage by bringing claim in Singapore

Conflict of Laws–Choice of law–Tort–Whether quantification of damages determined by lexi fori or lexi loci delicti

The appellant, a Malaysian, and the respondent, a Singaporean, were involved in an accident in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. The appellant's car had collided into the back of the respondent's car. The respondent brought a claim in the District Court in Singapore for damages for personal injury caused by the appellant's negligence. The appellant applied for an order that the action be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens. The application was dismissed by the deputy registrar of the Subordinate Courts, but was allowed, on appeal, by the district judge ("District Judge"). The District Judge's decision was, however, reversed in an appeal to the High Court by the judge below ("the Judge"). The respondent appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) As a general rule, the place where a tort had occurred wasprima facie the natural forum for determining the claim. The fact that the tort had occurred in Malaysia was a factor pointing to Malaysia as a clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum to adjudicate on the matter. This factor, however, had to be considered and weighed against all the other factors: at [10].

(2) The availability of witnesses, which had an impact on the convenience or expense of a trial in a particular forum, was a relevant factor. Apart from the appellant, who was based in Malaysia, all the witnesses were based in Singapore. This pointed to Singapore as the more appropriate forum: at [11].

(3) The choice of law factor in the present case was neutral. Although the lex loci delicti was Malaysian law, the law relating to negligence on the roads in Malaysia and Singapore was essentially the same. The primary difference was only in the quantification of damages. The Malaysian courts were likely to award a lesser sum than the Singapore courts for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity. This, however, was not a juridical advantage which the respondent could claim in its favour. The court would not refrain from granting a stay of proceedings simply because the claimant would be deprived of a juridical advantage if he had to litigate in the other forum, provided that substantial justice would be done in the other forum. There was nothing to suggest that substantial justice would not be done in Malaysia: at [14].

(4) In any event, it was not a foregone conclusion that the respondent's claim if heard in Singapore would mean that Singapore law would apply to determine the quantification of damages. The traditional English position that quantification of damages was determined by the lex fori had been eclipsed by recent developments in English law which suggested that the quantification of damages would be determined by the law of the tort. In Singapore, whether the law of the tort should apply to determining the quantum of damages was still an open question: at [16] to [24].

(5) In ascertaining whether Malaysia or Singapore was the more appropriate forum, it was unnecessary and unhelpful to refer to the strength of the parties' respective cases and to express a preference for avoiding causing inconvenience to the party with the stronger case. It would confuse matters to have the court ascertain the strength of the parties' respective cases at a stage where the court was faced with the question of determining the appropriate forum: at [26] and [27].

(6) In the final analysis, all that remained were two competing factors for the court's consideration: first, the fact that the tort had occurred in Malaysia; and second, the fact that all of the witnesses (with the exception of the appellant) were in Singapore. On balance, the appellant had failed to show that Malaysia was a clearly more appropriate forum: at [28] and [29].

Chaplin v Boys [1971] AC 356 (refd)

Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth) [1984] 12 Lloyd's Rep 91 (refd)

Harding v Wealands [2004] EWHC 1957 (refd)

Harding v Wealands [2005] 1 WLR 1539 (refd)

Harding v Wealands [2007] 2 AC 1 (refd)

Ismail bin Sukardi v Kamal bin Ikhwan [2008] SGHC 191 (refd)

J D'Almeida Araujo LDA v Sir Frederick Becker & Co Ld [1953] 2 QB 329 (refd)

John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 (refd)

Maher v Groupama Grand Est [2009] 1 WLR 1752 (refd)

Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria [2007] 4 SLR (R) 565; [2007] 4 SLR 565 (refd)

Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian [2006] 2 SLR (R) 381; [2006] 2 SLR 381 (refd)

Rainbow Joy, The [2005] 3 SLR (R) 719; [2005] 3 SLR 719 (refd)

Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491 (refd)

Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR (R) 377; [2007] 1 SLR 377 (refd)

Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (refd)

Stevens v Head (1993) 176 CLR 433 (refd)

Xin Yang and An Kang Jiang, The [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 217 (refd)

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (c 42) (UK) s 14

Chew Mei Lin Lynette and Sue-Anne Lim (Harry Elias Partnership) for the appellant

Tiwary Anuradha (Vision Law LLC) for the respondent.

Chao Hick Tin JA

(delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

Introduction

1 This is an appeal by Goh Suan Hee (the defendant in DC Suit No 1070 of 2008/W ("DC Suit 1070")) against the decision of the judge below ("the Judge") in Teo Cher Teck v Goh Suan Hee [2009] 1 SLR (R) 749 ("the Judgment"), who reversed the decision of the district judge ("the District Judge") which ordered a stay of the respondent's (the plaintiff in DC Suit 1070) action on the ground of forum non conveniens. We heard and dismissed the appeal on 18 May 2009. We now give the reasons for our decision.

The background

2 The appellant, a Malaysian national, was involved in a motor accident with the respondent, a Singaporean national, on 21 January 2007 in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. The appellant's car had collided into the back of the respondent's car. As a result of this accident, the appellant was fined RM300 by the Malaysian traffic police. Subsequently, the respondent brought a claim against the appellant in the District Court in Singapore for damages for personal injury caused by the appellant's negligence. The appellant's insurer, Pacific & Orient Insurance Co, took over the conduct of the proceedings.

3 The appellant applied for an order that the action be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing that Malaysia was a more appropriate forum to adjudicate on the matter. This application was dismissed by the deputy registrar of the Subordinate Courts, Ms Carol Ling, but was allowed, on appeal, by the District Judge. The District Judge, in allowing the appeal, had accepted the appellant's argument that Malaysia was the proper forum because it was the place where the tort had occurred. The respondent appealed.

The Judge's decision

4 The Judge reversed the District Judge's decision and held that the appellant had failed to show that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum. The Judge expressed the following reasons for his decision:

(a) Although as a general rule in tortious claims, the lex loci delicti, which in this case was Malaysian law, would determine the rights and liabilities of the parties, this was not an inflexible rule. It was possible for some other law to apply (the Judgment at [5]).

(b) In any event, Malaysian law on the tort of negligence was largely similar to Singapore law (the Judgment at [7]).

(c) On the question of witnesses, the respondent had five witnesses based in Singapore (himself, two doctors, a repair mechanic and a surveyor) whereas the appellant had no witnesses other than himself (the Judgment at [3]).

(d) This was an uncomplicated case because liability was not really in dispute and the case was most likely concerned only with the assessment of damages (the Judgment at [6]).

(e) In road accident cases in which the main issue in dispute was the quantum of damages, where the inconvenience was roughly the same, it would be better not to cause inconvenience to an injured plaintiff than a defendant tortfeasor unless it would appear that the plaintiff's claim was unlikely to succeed (the Judgment at [6]).

(f) On the question of damages, if the claim was brought in Malaysia, the respondent would receive less by way of an award in Malaysian currency as compared to an award granted in Singapore. The respondent ought to be compensated for what he had lost, and what he would lose in Singapore (the Judgment at [8]).

5 For these reasons, the Judge found that, on balance, the appellant had failed to show that Malaysia was a clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum than Singapore to adjudicate on the matter. He thus allowed the appeal against the District Judge's decision to stay the proceedings.

Our decision

General principles on the doctrine of forum non conveniens

6 In deciding whether to stay an action on the basis of forum non...