Lanna Resources Public Co Ltd v Tan Beng Phiau Dick and another

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeJudith Prakash J
Judgment Date28 September 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 287
Citation[2010] SGHC 287
Hearing Date29 July 2010
Plaintiff CounselNg Kim Beng (Rajah & Tann LLP)
Published date06 October 2010
Defendant CounselSujatha Bhargavan (Toh Tan LLP)
Date28 September 2010
Docket NumberSuit No 50 of 2010 (Registrar’s Appeal No 253 of 2010)
Judith Prakash J:

In May 2010, the defendants filed a Summons-in-Chambers seeking the following reliefs: An order that all further proceedings in the plaintiff’s action herein against the defendants be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens and/or lis alibi pendens. Alternatively, an order that all further proceedings in the plaintiff’s action herein against the defendants be stayed pending and until the final determination and resolution of the arbitration proceedings in the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) in Case No ARB055/09/MM (“the arbitration proceedings”) commenced by the plaintiff against Saraburi Resources Pte Ltd (“SRL”) and PT Saraburi Batu Hitam (“SBH”) in relation to an advance of US$2m paid by the plaintiff to SRL.

The defendants’ application was dismissed by Assistant Registrar Then Ling (“the AR”) on 18 June 2010. The defendants appealed against that dismissal. I heard the appeal on 29 July 2010 and was not persuaded that the decision below was wrong. Accordingly, I dismissed the appeal.

Background

The plaintiff is a company incorporated in the Kingdom of Thailand and is in the business of the sale and distribution of coal. The first defendant is an Indonesian national and the second defendant is a Thai national. The defendants are both directors of SRL, a company incorporated in Singapore, and are also the beneficial owners of this company. The third company involved in the matter is SBH, a company incorporated in Indonesia, which has rights to carry out coal mining activities in a particular area in Indonesia.

The plaintiff’s case in this action appears from the averments in the statement of claim endorsed on the writ herein which was filed on 25 January 2010.

On 25 April 2008, an agreement entitled “Memorandum of Agreement” (“the MOA”) was entered into between the plaintiff, SRL and SBH. By the MOA, the plaintiff agreed to lend SRL up to US$4m (“the loan”) for the construction of a coal port and jetty and other infrastructural items to facilitate delivery of coal mined from SBH’s mines. The MOA provided that SRL would be in default of the loan if it failed to comply with certain documents which were described as the “Coal Supply Contracts”. Upon such default, the loan plus interest at a specified rate would become due and payable on demand.

Paragraph 8 of the statement of claim averred that in consideration of the plaintiff making or continuing to make the loan to SRL, the first and second defendants agreed to guarantee all sums of money owing or remaining unpaid by SRL to the plaintiff under the MOA and to pay to the plaintiff on demand, as principal debtors, all sums of money which were owing on the date of such demand. It referred to the written guarantee dated 25 April 2008 (“the guarantee”) signed by the plaintiff and the defendants.

According to para 10 of the MOA, the plaintiff paid the first advance of the loan in the sum of US$2m to SRL on 6 May 2008. Subsequently, SRL did not perform the Coal Supply Contracts and on 25 March 2009, the plaintiff issued a written demand to SRL for the repayment of US$2,115,150 being the principal of the loan advanced and interest thereon at the agreed rate. SRL failed or refused to pay the said sum or any part thereof to the plaintiff.

By two letters dated 27 April 2009 [(para 16 of the statement of claim)], the plaintiff made a written demand on the defendants to fulfil their obligations under the guarantee and make payment of the sum of US$2,120,750 to the plaintiff (this being the amount outstanding as at 16 April 2009). No payment was made and this action was started against the defendants on 25 January 2010.

In the meantime, pursuant to a clause in the MOA which provided for disputes to be submitted to arbitration according to the rules of the SIAC, the plaintiff submitted its claim against SRL for arbitration by two arbitrators appointed by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Nava Bharat (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Straits Law Practice LLC and another and another suit
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 Mayo 2015
    ...the share pledges were exercised, Sreenivasan came across the case of Lanna Resources Public Co Ltd v Tan Beng Phiau Dick and another [2011] 1 SLR 543 (“Lanna v Tan”) and forwarded it to Ashwin.397 It was only then that Nava Bharat found out Dicky Tan had some form of arrangement with anoth......
  • Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 25 Septiembre 2013
    ...Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd [1997] 2 SLR (R) 148; [1997] 3 SLR 121 (refd) Lanna Resources Public Co Ltd v Tan Beng Phiau Dick [2011] 1 SLR 543 (refd) Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd v Toh Chun Toh Gordon [2009] 1 SLR (R) 1000; [2009] 1 SLR 1000 (refd) Rickshaw Investments ......
  • Maybank Kim Eng Securities Pte Ltd v Lim Keng Yong and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 Abril 2016
    ...is hence misplaced. The other authority cited by the appellant is Lanna Resources Public Co Ltd v Tan Beng Phiau Dick and another [2011] 1 SLR 543 (“Lanna Resources”). That was also a judgment of Prakash J which dealt with the defendants’ liability under a guarantee agreement (“the Guarante......
  • Maybank Kim Eng Securities Pte Ltd v Lim Keng Yong and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 Abril 2016
    ...is hence misplaced. The other authority cited by the appellant is Lanna Resources Public Co Ltd v Tan Beng Phiau Dick and another [2011] 1 SLR 543 (“Lanna Resources”). That was also a judgment of Prakash J which dealt with the defendants’ liability under a guarantee agreement (“the Guarante......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Conflict of Laws
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 Diciembre 2010
    ...of proceedings). Lis alibi pendens came up for consideration in two cases, Lanna Resources Public Co Ltd v Tan Beng Phiau Dick [2011] 1 SLR 543 (‘Lanna Resources’) and RBS Coutts Bank Ltd v Brunner Hans-Peter [2010] SGHC 342 (‘RBS Coutts Bank’). 10.57 For the ground of lis alibi pendens to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT