Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Steven Chong J |
Judgment Date | 29 May 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 144 |
Published date | 05 June 2015 |
Date | 29 May 2015 |
Year | 2015 |
Hearing Date | 16 March 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Chan Ming Onn David, Probin Stephan Dass, Tan Aik Thong, and Chan Junhao, Justin (Shook Lin & Bok LLP) |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 144 |
Defendant Counsel | Sushil Sukumaran Nair, Hing Shan Shan Blossom, Raymond Lam Kuo Wei, and Allen Lye Xin Ren (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 896 of 2014 (Summons No 5543 of 2014) |
Almost 30 years ago, Chan Sek Keong JC (as he then was), delivered a decision in
The decision in
In 1991, about a year after the publication of the article, a number of amendments were introduced to the 1970 Rules. Two should be singled out for brief mention. First, O 11 r 6(2)(c) (now O 11 r 4(2)(c) of the Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)) (“2014 Rules” or simply “our Rules”) was introduced to provide that service of process may also be effected by a method of service authorised by the law of that country for service of any originating process issued by that country. Therefore, the same manner of service effected in
The amendments to O 11 did not specifically address the correctness of the court’s nullity finding in
Despite the development of the law in this area over the last 30 years, O 11 continues to vex lawyers. The central question in this application is this: how many methods of service does O 11 of our Rules provide for? Even this deceptively simple question has given rise to a fundamental disagreement over the basic structure of the statutory scheme. The plaintiff argued that O 11 provided for
The plaintiff and the defendants are part of the “Humpuss” group of companies whose business interests range from shipping services to asset management.1 The plaintiff was incorporated in Singapore and it owns several oil products tankers in addition to being the majority shareholder in a number of marine companies.2 On 20 January 2012, the plaintiff was ordered to be placed in compulsory liquidation.3 Both defendants were incorporated in Indonesia.
On 18 August 2014, the plaintiff, through the liquidator, commenced Suit No 896 of 2014 against the first and second defendants, seeking repayment of $110m in loans owed and a declaration that several transactions entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant in 2009 be set aside for being transactions at an undervalue.4 On 18 September 2014, the plaintiff obtained leave to serve its writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendants at their registered address in Indonesia.5
On 2 October 2014, Kristian Takasdo, a Junior Associate with Budijaja & Associates, a firm of solicitors practising in the Republic of Indonesia, effected service of the original as well as translated copies of (a) the writ of summons; (b) the statement of claim; and (c) the order of court granting leave to effect service out of jurisdiction (collectively, “the Court Documents”).6 Mr Takasdo effected service on both defendants by (a) personally serving the Court Documents at the respective defendants’ registered addresses;7 and (b) by arranging for copies of the same to be sent to them by way of courier service.8 The defendants do not dispute that they have received the Court Documents.9
On 23 October 2014, M/s Drew & Napier LLC entered an appearance on behalf of both defendants.10 On 6 November 2014, the defendants filed Summons No 5543 of 2014, seeking a declaration that the Court Documents had not been duly served on them.11
The parties’ argumentsI will first set out the relevant provisions of O 11 rr 3 and 4 for ease of reference:
The defendants’ arguments
Service of originating process abroad: Alternative modes (O. 11, r. 3) 3.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (8), Order 10, Rule 1 and Order 62, Rule 5 shall apply in relation to the service of an originating process out of Singapore.
(2) Nothing in this Rule or in any order or direction of the Court made by virtue of it shall authorise or require the doing of anything in a country in which service is to be effected which is contrary to the law of that country.
(3) An originating process which is to be served out of Singapore need not be served personally on the person required to be served so long as it is served on him in accordance with the law of the country in which service is effected.
…
Service of originating process abroad through foreign governments, judicial authorities and Singapore consuls or by other method of service (O. 11, r. 4) …
(2) Where in accordance with these Rules an originating process is to be served on a defendant in any country with respect to which there does not subsist a Civil Procedure Convention providing for service in that country of process of the High Court, the originating process may be served —
(a) through the government of that country, where that government is willing to effect service;(b) through a Singapore consular authority in that country, except where service through such an authority is contrary to the law of that country; or(c) by a method of service authorised by the law of that country for service of any originating process issued by that country.
Ms Hing, counsel for the defendants, submitted that because Indonesia is not a country with which Singapore has a Civil Procedure Convention, the only acceptable methods for service of the Court Documents were those stipulated in r 4(2).12 In support, she relied on the decision in
Ms Hing also argued that the service was contrary to Indonesian law for two reasons.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Able Food Sdn Bhd vs Open Country Dairy Limited
...attention of this court to Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another [2015] SGHC 144 which usefully set out a category of cases where any irregularity in service can be cured if such service is successful in bringing notice......
-
Kroll, Daniel v Cyberdyne Tech Exchange Pte Ltd
...(refd) Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd [2018] 2 SLR 333 (refd) Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK [2015] 4 SLR 625 (refd) Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565; [2006] 2 SLR 565 (refd) Leong Chee Kin v Ideal Design Studio Pte Ltd [2018] 4 SLR 331 (r......
-
MALAYSIA OFFSHORE MOBILE PRODUCTION vs PCPP OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD
...mode of service of foreign court papers in Indonesia. [111] In Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK [2015] 4 SLR 625, the Singapore High Court was faced with facts similar to that of the present case. In that the Singaporean plaintiff served its writ of summ......
-
Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK
...which I dismissed – see Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another [2015] 4 SLR 625. On this occasion, the defendants mounted two separate applications: one to strike out the action and another to stay the action in favour o......
-
Civil Procedure
...foundation for the respondent's averments. Service 8.108 Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK[2015] 4 SLR 625 (‘Humpuss’) was a significant decision in which the High Court provided important guidance on the methods of service out of jurisdiction under O 11 ......