Teo Cher Teck v Goh Suan Hee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 04 November 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGHC 194
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 1070 of 2008 (Registrar's Appeal from the Subordinate Courts
• Date: 04 November 2008
• Year: 2008
• Published date: 05 November 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tiwary Anuradha (Vision Law LLC)
• Citation: [2008] SGHC 194
• Defendant Counsel: Lynette Chew and Sue-Anne Lim (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Accident in Malaysia,Conflict of Laws,Defendant's car hit the rear of plaintiff's car,Choice of jurisdiction,Stay of proceedings,Plaintiff resident in Singapore,Whether Singapore or Malaysia the more appropriate forum

4 November 2008 Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J:

1 This was an action commenced in the District Courts for a claim for damages for personal injury caused by the defendant’s negligence that resulted in the collision between the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s motor-vehicles on a road in Johor Bahru, Malaysia on 21 January 2007. Miss Anuradha represented the plaintiff and Miss Chew represented the defendant. The defendant in the present action was in fact the insurer, Pacific & Orient Insurance Co who had taken over the conduct of legal proceedings as is usually the case in such matters.

2 Miss Chew applied to the District Court to stay this action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The court below accepted her submission that since the accident took place in Malaysia and the defendant driver was a Malaysian resident, Malaysia, not Singapore, was the proper forum. Miss Chew reiterated the same arguments before me, and emphasized the point that the place where the tort occurred is, prima facie, the proper forum. Counsel relied on Rickshaw Investments Ltd and Anor v Nicolai Baron Von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR 377. There was no dispute on the law in this regard as Miss Anuradha also relied on the same authority. The principle enunciated generally was that the court ought to first determine whether there was some other forum that was more appropriate to try the case, and if so, whether there was any reason which required the court not to order a stay of proceedings.

3 Miss Anuradha submitted that the defendant driver’s car collided with the rear of the plaintiff’s car and liability is unlikely to be of a major concern at trial. The plaintiff, a Singapore resident suffered personal injuries and was attended to by doctors in Singapore. She argued that the main aspect of this action would be the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the loss of earnings as well as the cost of repairs to his vehicle. The plaintiff’s vehicle was repaired in Singapore. She said that the plaintiff has five witnesses, including two doctors, the repair mechanic, the surveyor and the plaintiff himself. The defendant driver appears to have no witnesses other than himself.

4 The court below stated that –

I find that after weighing all the relevant factors there is a distinctly more appropriate forum that of Malaysia. The factors relevant and which favour the Defendants at stage I of the inquiry are – a. The Defendant is a Malaysian b. The tort took place in Malaysia. c. The application law would likely be Malaysian law (moreover rules governing traffic accidents would be clearly be those of Malaysia). The natural expectation of a person would be that the law of the place of the wrong would govern his rights and duties – see Ang Chuang Ming. As to stage II – I can find no reason to refuse stay. The argument put forward on behalf of the Plaintiff with respect to the expense and inconvenience placed on the Plaintiff if he had to litigate in Malaysia is not sufficient to deny the stay which ought to be granted based on the fact that Malaysia is a more appropriate forum. While the Plaintiff may have decided for good...