In the  GENERAL DIVISION OF  THE  high court of the republic of singapore[2021] SGHC  124Originating Summons  No 1543  of 2019  (Summons  No  495 of 2020)BetweenNational Oilwell Varco Norway AS (formerly known as Hydralift AS)…  PlaintiffAndKeppel FELS  Ltd  (formerly known as Far East Levingston Shipbuilding Ltd)…  Defendantgrounds of decision[Arbitration] — [Enforcement]  — [Setting aside  leave to enforce]  — [Where non-existent entity named as party to arbitration]  [Arbitration] — [Conduct of

) Co Ltd…  PlaintiffAndOpus Tiger 3 Pte Ltd…  DefendantOriginating Summons No 1516 of 2018 (Summons No 5461 of 2019)BetweenReignwood International Investment (Group) Co Ltd…  PlaintiffAndOpus Tiger 4 Pte Ltd…  Defendantgrounds of decision[Civil Procedure]  — [Parties]  — [Joinder]  — [Non-party applying  for joinder  after final order  made] — [Whether  court still had  power to order joinder]  — [Whether power to order joinder should be exercised]  — [O 15 r 6(2)(b) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5

Part A p 50.  6    Upon the occurrence of  an event of default, the non-defaulting party  was entitled to  provide  a  notice to the defaulting party specifying the relevant event of default, and  to  designate the early termination date. The repurchase date of the GDRs  would  then  be  brought forward to the early termination date, 5

---

or face the burden of satisfying the court that the debt is bona fide disputed on substantial grounds (ie, the triable issue standard). This would be entirely contrary to the parties’ agreement as to the proper forum for the resolution of the dispute and to the legislative policy of the arbitration legislation. Accordingly, when faced with a disputed debt that was subject to an arbitration agreement, the court in Salford held that, save in “wholly exceptional circumstances”, the winding-up application ought to be stayed or dismissed: at [30]. 11     

;were Mr   and  Mr   While Mr   was wearing his BTO hat  at that meeting, he still occupied his position on the BTN board. No settlement was reached, and the cases were referred to the MIC on 8 August 2014. he respondents and  BTO  were copied in these referral letters. From October 2014 to January 2015, the MIC  fixed and then  adjourned the hearings of the cases multiple times due to the  non-attendnce  of  BTO. In the process,  numerous  notices of the proceedings and various related

---

respondents and BTO were copied in the relevant referral letters. For several months, the MIC fixed and adjourned the hearings of the cases multiple times due to the non-attendance of BTO, and numerous notices of the proceedings were sent to BTO at its registered office. In the end, the hearings in respect of the respondents’ cases proceeded in BTO’s absence. Awards against BTO were issued by the MIC in April 2015 and July 2015 in favour of the respondents (“the MIC Awards”). The MIC found that their dismissals had been “without just cause or excuse” and awarded them

;      Choong  Chee Hong’s  1st  Affidavit  dated 22 November 2018 (“CCH’s 1st  Affidavit”)  at paras  5  and 12  13    Mr  Choong contended that properly construed, s 377A criminalises only commercial (male) homosexual activity and not private, consensual acts of a non-commercial nature. In addition,  s 377A does not extend to penetrative sexual activity, which was already covered by s

---

generally and enable enforcement and prosecution of all forms of gross indecency between males. It was not targeted solely at male prostitution when it was enacted in 1938. · Section 377A covers all forms of male homosexual activity including penetrative and non-penetrative sex, whether in public or in private and with or without consent. · The presumption of constitutionality applies to s 377A as the provision was extensively debated and retained by Parliament in 2007. · Section 377A does not violate Article 12 of the Constitution as it was not under

;      Applicants’ Written Submissions at paras 36–54.   (c) Singapore was the natural forum for the resolution of the dispute 19 Foot Note 19 ×

;First,  there is a good arguable case that the  plaintiff’s  claim falls within one of the jurisdictional grounds in O 11 r 1 of the Rules of Court  (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)  (“ROC”).(b)    Second,  there is a serious issue to be tried  on the merits.(c)    Third,  Singapore is  the proper forum to hear the dispute.(respectively, the “first”, “second” and “third conditions”)4    The defendant’s counsel, Mr Kenny Lau,  disagrees entirely. He submits  that the failure to fulfil

Contract Act and would shock the conscience of the court, (b) whether the Award granted consequential damages which were beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, (c) whether the claim was barred by limitation,  and (d) whether the pre-award interest amounted to an award of multiple damages. The DHC also considered whether the Award against the Minors was illegal,  non est  and void, and against the public policy of India.28    Nath J denied enforcement against the Minors on public policy grounds, but  allowed  enforcement against the remaining Sellers 

---

issue of time limitation could be reviewed de novo given that the time limitation was a jurisdictional issue under Indian law, and the Majority was wrong to find that the claim was not time-barred, so the Award should be set aside. The Award against BBB, BBD, BBG, BBH and BBM (“the Non-Management Sellers”) was against the public policy of Singapore because they should not be bound by the fraudulent misrepresentation of BBA, and the Award was disproportionate to the sizes of their respective shareholdings in C, so it should be set aside as against them under Art 34(2)(b)(ii

; The JVA, Debenture and Loan Agreement were all governed by the laws of Singapore and provided for the non-exclusive jurisdiction of Singapore Courts.12    The plaintiff claimed that it invested an aggregate sum of about USD8,185,143.67 in the joint venture (the “Plaintiff’s Investment Moneys”), comprising:(a)    USD7.6m pursuant to the Debenture; and(b)    US$585,143.67 drawn down under the Loan Agreement.  The defendant claimed that no funds were received from the plaintiff at all. The defendant also claimed that the Central