 |
- Significant cases & deals featuring our lawyers
There are different kinds of jurisdiction clauses, such as those which list a particular forum as the exclusive jurisdiction, or as the non-exclusive jurisdiction. In Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v Hii Yii Ann [2014] SGHC 194, the Singapore High Court considered the effectiveness of such clauses in determining the appropriate forum, as well as the effect which prior negotiation may have on the strength of the clause.
In this case, Francis Xavier SC and Ang Tze Phern from the Commercial Litigation Practice successfully represented the Plaintiff in resisting an application for a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.
The Plaintiff had sued the Defendant before the Singapore courts for the alleged breach of a settlement agreement. The agreement contained a jurisdiction clause pointing to Australia as a non-exclusive jurisdiction for the resolution of disputes. The Defendant then applied to stay the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.
The Court held in favour of the Plaintiff, applying the Spiliada test to determine that the Defendant had not shown that Australia was a clearly more appropriate forum than Singapore.
In reaching this decision, the Court considered the application of the modified Spiliada test, in which a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause which has been freely negotiated between the parties may be treated by the Court as amounting to a "most-appropriate" jurisdiction clause. It held that the Defendant had failed to show that the modified Spiliada test was applicable in the situation at hand, and that the modified Spiliada test was not relevant in Singapore law.
We featured this case in the October 2014 issue of our Client Update. To view this Update, click here.
Back to Top Print
In R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG, the Singapore Court of Appeal had occasion to grant its first known successful anti-suit injunction in support of arbitration, overturning a decision of the High Court. The last known reported similar anti-suit injunction was granted by the High Court in 2002.
Paul Tan from the International Arbitration Practice successfully represented the party applying for the anti-suit injunction in the appeal.
The parties had entered into a series of five commodities trading agreements. In each case, an initial email confirming price and quantity would be sent, followed by the Supplier's standard terms and conditions (the "Supplier's Terms"), which included an arbitration clause. The dispute arose over the second transaction, in which the Supplier's Terms were alleged to have been sent after the delivery of goods had been made. The Purchaser claimed that the Supplier's Terms, and thus the arbitration clause, had not been incorporated into the agreement.
The Court of Appeal held that the Supplier's Terms had in fact been incorporated. Counsel for the Supplier submitted that the Supplier's Terms were not a subsequent variation of the agreement, but were rather always intended by the parties to form part of the agreement. They had a common understanding that performance would begin upon agreement of the basic terms, whereupon standard terms and conditions would follow. This could be inferred from the conduct of the parties, as the Supplier had accepted delivery and made payment for all five transactions, and had not objected to the Supplier's Terms.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause applied, and granted the Supplier an injunction restraining the further prosecution of proceedings which the Purchaser had initiated in Switzerland.
This decision is significant not only because of the judiciary's enforcement of an arbitration agreement, but also as to when standard terms and conditions can be deemed to be incorporated into general commercial agreements.
We featured this case in the October 2014 issue of our Client Update. To view this Update, click here.
Back to Top Print
In Muthukumaran s/o Varthan and another v Kwong Kai Chung and others [2014] SGHC 204, the Plaintiff owners of a two-storey shophouse, which did not have a staircase, applied for a declaration that they had an easement of a right of way over the staircase of the adjacent unit, which was owned by the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
Adrian Wong and Yan Yijun from the Commercial Litigation Practice successfully represented the 1st and 2nd Defendants in resisting the Plaintiffs' application.
The Plaintiffs relied on section 99 of the Land Titles Act, which provides for an implied easement for right of way where, inter alia:
(i) The competent authority has approved the development and subdivision of the land, and the subdivision plan has been submitted to the competent authority; and
(ii) The easement is over or under lands appropriated or set apart on the subdivision plan.
In this case, the Plaintiffs failed to produce the necessary approved subdivision plan. Therefore, they could not succeed in proving the easement.
Further, an implied easement under section 99 of the Land Titles Act must be clearly and specifically indicated in the approved subdivision plan. The Plaintiffs argued that the Court could look at the development plan instead, where the staircase in question had in fact been drawn, in order to determine whether an easement should be implied under section 99(1) of the Land Titles Act. However, the Court held that the development plan could not be a substitute for the subdivision plan for this purpose, and that - in any event - an easement of a right of way over the staircase had not been expressly indicated in the development plan.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' application.
Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
Click here to read the article Back to Top Print
|
|
