; Court Proceedings were  a safety net against:(a)    possible defects in the purported commencement of arbitration by way of the  June NOA, and them being too late to remedy that by the  November NOAs;(b)    more generally, against anything they may have failed to do in relation to properly commencing arbitration within the limitation period;  and(c)    any issue of non-arbitrability of the matters in the  Court  Proceedings, or with the availability in arbitration of the relief sought in the  Court

disclosed or used in open court: GD at [26]  and [27].  In assessing voluntariness,  the respondent to a pre-action disclosure application should be treated differently. It  did not merely risk default if it chose not to respond. Instead,  if  it failed to resist the application, there would be a serious intrusion into the privacy of a non-party. Given the intrusive nature of pre-action disclosure, the public interest in protecting the respondent’s privacy and confidentiality featured more heavily: GD at [32]. The  respondent’s  reliance on  the

material breach of the SSHA. By the clause 17 put option,  the  Promoter was obliged to purchase  the  Investor’s shares in  the  Company at a price corresponding to an “Internal Rate of Return” (“IRR”) of 25% compounded annually. Clause 28.3 of the SSHA further provided that:  Each of the  rights of the Parties hereto under this [SSHA] are independent, cumulative and without prejudice to all other rights available to them, and the exercise or non-exercise of any such rights shall not prejudice or constitute a waiver of any other right of

;others and  another suit [2018] 5 SLR 1 (“the  Judgment”). As described in the  Judgment,  DyStar  became a joint venture company between Kiri and WPL/Senda in the dye industry. The conduct of the joint venture was governed by the SSSA. It contained, in cll 15.1(a) and (b), non-compete and non-solicitation provisions restricting the conduct of Kiri’s own business in the dye industry  (see [286] of the Judgment).2    In the  Judgment, we held that Kiri had breached cll 15.1(a) and (b) in respect of FOTL. On appeal

---

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE 9 January 2020 Case summary Singapore International Commercial Court Suit No 3 of 2017 DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd and others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision of Kannan Ramesh J, Roger Giles IJ and Anselmo Reyes IJ Outcome: The Court decided the bases of assessment of damages for breaches of non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in an agreement governing a joint venture in the dye industry. Damages were ordered in relation

court must be wary not to engage in the merits of the parties’ dispute, as the court is not the proper forum to adjudicate the dispute between the parties which is subject to arbitration (VTB Bank  at [100]). 2    In transactions involving the sale of commodities, back-to-back contracts or a string of contracts are commonplace. Quite often, the physical supplier or the original seller might not know the identity of the ultimate receiver or buyer.  Between these two parties  there  would typically  be  a chain of intermediaries whose sole

---

the cargo. Based on the timelines under the respective contracts, X was to pay the respondent before the respondent was due to pay the appellant, though the respondent was supposed to receive the cargo from the appellant before it was delivered to X. As an intermediary, the respondent stood to gain a modest sum of US$8,000. 2 Under the respondent-X contract, X was due to pay the respondent by 10 July 2018, but failed to do so. The respondent in turn failed to pay the appellant by 11 July 2018, as required under the appellant-respondent contract. Prior to the non-payment, there were

powers set out in the First Schedule.…18    Paragraph 9 of the First Schedule to the SCJA then provides as follows:Stay of proceedings9.  Power to dismiss or stay proceedings where the matter in question is res judicata between the parties, or where by reason of multiplicity of proceedings in any court or courts or by reason of a court in Singapore not being the appropriate forum the proceedings ought not to be continued.        Application  of the principles  to the  present case19    On

 nothing in the nature of fraud  in relation to the conduct of the Indonesian proceedings (GD at [44] and [46]).18    As the appellants’ arguments on material non-disclosure hinged  partly  on the existence of pending appeals and the possibility of a breach of natural  justice  in the PKPU proceedings, which the Judge had dismissed on the facts, the Judge also held that the Receivers did not breach their duty of full and frank disclosure in respect of these points  (GD at [55]). Where the issue of  non-disclosure of  the  

(the liability judgment).3     DyStar  is the joint venture company formed by Kiri and WPL/Senda. Under the joint venture agreement (the SSSA), Kiri had agreed  to  non-competition and non-solicitation obligations in the  SSSA’s clauses 15.1(a) and  15.1(b). In the liability judgment, the trial court held that Kiri had breached these clauses in respect of a single customer, FOTL. On appeal, in  Senda  International Capital Ltd  v Kiri  Industries Ltd and others and another appeal [2019] 2 SLR 1, we held that Kiri had

---

19 October 2020 Case summary Kiri Industries Limited and another v DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 05 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Sir Bernard Rix IJ): Outcome: CoA allows in part the appeal against the Singapore International Commercial Court’s decision on the quantum of damages to be awarded for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation obligations in a joint venture between two dye manufacturers

 part of the common areas of the building;(c)    misrepresenting  the rental yields of the respective shop units, because the rental yields represented to the plaintiffs  were premised on the entire shop unit area  being rented out, but this was untrue  given the sizeable non-rentable  marked out  common areas, including  advertising panels,  in the  stated  total shop unit floor area; and(d)    misrepresentations that popular brands and quality tenants will be leasing units in the

(see also our observations in Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and  anor  [2012] 1 SLR 457 at [53]).16    If, as seems obvious to us, the validity of the settlement  must  be resolved first, the only remaining question is which forum is to do that. In truth, the stance of the present actions  point  clearly to the answer. The appellant has not raised the validity of the SA in the court proceedings. Those proceedings concern the substantive question of the alleged infringement of the appellant’s intellectual property rights.  The