John Reginald Stott Kirkham and Others v Trane US Inc and Others
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 15 July 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 32 |
Citation | [2009] SGCA 32 |
Subject Matter | Vexatious and oppressive conduct,Vexation or oppression of plaintiff if foreign proceedings continued,Onus on applicant for anti-suit injunction,Governing law relevant consideration,Elements to be considered,Institution of foreign proceedings in breach of agreement between parties,Anti-suit injunction,Restraint of foreign proceedings,Injustice to defendant as injunction deprived defendant of advantages sought in foreign proceedings,Conflict of Laws,Comity,Appellate court slow to interfere with lower court's decision,Civil Procedure,Not for court to pass judgment on competence or independence of judiciary of foreign court or legal system,Place where tort occurred strong but not conclusive indicator,Injunctions,Inconsistent with comity to restrain party from proceeding in foreign court solely on basis of natural forum,Amenability to jurisdiction of Singapore court,Singapore to be shown to be clearly more appropriate forum,No presumption that multiplicity of proceedings vexatious,Natural forum,Clear case of vexation and oppression justify anti-suit injunction |
Plaintiff Counsel | Rajah Chelva Retnam SC and Chew Kei-Jin (Tan Rajah & Cheah) |
Defendant Counsel | Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan (Niru & Co) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 103 of 2008 |
Date | 15 July 2009 |
Published date | 21 July 2009 |
15 July 2009 |
|
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):
Introduction
1 Civil Appeal No 103 of 2008 (“CA 103”), was an appeal by the defendants (“the Appellants”) against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Summons No 5248 of 2007 (“SUM 5248”), in which the Judge granted the plaintiffs (“the Respondents”) an injunction (otherwise known as an “anti-suit injunction”) to restrain the Appellants from continuing with the Indonesian proceedings which the Appellants had brought against the Respondents (“the Indonesian Action”). CA 103 was heard together with Civil Appeal No 128 of 2008 (“CA 128”), which was an appeal by the Appellants against the Judge’s dismissal of their application in Summons No 5167 of 2007 (“SUM 5167”) for a stay of the action which the Respondents had instituted in Singapore against the Appellants (“the Singapore Action”) on the ground of forum non conveniens. The reasons for the Judge’s decisions in SUM 5248 and SUM 5167 can be found in his grounds of decision, viz, Trane US Inc v Kirkham John Reginald Stott
The parties
Background facts
The [First Respondent and TAC] agree that they will form a joint venture operating subsidiary in Indonesia only when it is permissible under Indonesian law for [the First Respondent] to be a shareholder in such company. However, in the event that TAC wishes to designate another company in Indonesia to be its distributor, then, it shall assure that:
i) If [the First Respondent] so requests, H.K. Aditirto shall be offered the right to subscribe to up to 20% of the shares of that company, and
ii) TAC shall procure for itself the right to subscribe to the balance of such shares, or it shall procure for [the First Respondent] the right to subscribe to shares in such company up to 30% of the balance, at a price not to exceed the book value of such shares.
iii) It shall comply with all applicable Indonesian laws and ordinances.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte v Hong Leong Finance Ltd
...2 SLR 457 (folld) Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd [2010] NSWCA 196 (refd) John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US Inc [2009] 4 SLR (R) 428; [2009] 4SLR 428 (folld) Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd [1997] 2 SLR (R) 148; [1997] 3 SLR 121 (refd) Noble Power Investments Ltd......
-
Ram Parshotam Mittal v Portcullis Trustnet (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others
...Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148 at [18]; John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others [2009] 4 SLR(R) 428 (“John Reginald Stott Kirkham”) at [33]. In the case before me, this required the Plaintiff to prove that Singapore was clearly the more ......
-
Relfo Ltd v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani
...(refd) Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd v Koh Chye Heng [1998] 3 SLR (R) 526; [1998] 3 SLR 833 (refd) John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US Inc [2009] SGCA 32 (refd) Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd [1997] 2 SLR (R) 148; [1997] 3 SLR 121 (folld) Masri v Consolidated Contractors International......
-
UBS AG v Telesto Investments Ltd
...[1964] AC 465 (refd) JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 391 (folld) John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US Inc [2009] 4 SLR (R) 428; [2009] 4 SLR 428 (refd) Kishinchand Tiloomal Bhojwani v Sunil Kishinchand Bhojwani [1996] 1 SLR (R) 861; [1996] 2 SLR 686 (refd) Koh Kay ......