cases involved a parent returning to his or her home country after the breakdown of the parents’ relationship.  33    In  UXH, the Court noted that the parties appeared to accept that the case did not involve a spouse who has no significant connection to the forum country after the divorce, feels or is isolated, and wishes to return to his or her home country (usually the country in which he or she grew up and where the extended family remains). Some lawyers have referred to this factual matrix as a case of  a  “trailing spouse”. In such cases

postponement of the  deadlines for the  first instalment. As became apparent in the arbitration proceedings, the parties differed as to what precisely had been agreed about the postponement of payment. 5    CBX  did not pay the first instalment under the  CBX  SPA. CBY  paid the first instalment under the  CBY  SPA, partly on 30 November  2015  and partly on 29 December 2015. It did not pay interest for late payment. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs were in default due to non-payment or late payment. The

---

CBY SPA, partly on 30 November 2015 and partly on 29 December 2015. It did not pay interest for late payment. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs were in default due to non-payment or late payment. The Defendants maintained that, in consequence, they could treat the CBX SPA as rescinded. The Defendants further alleged that, not only were the outstanding principal and interest of the first instalments due, but the Remaining Amounts had additionally become accelerated and so immediately payable in full. The Plaintiffs denied that the Defendants were entitled to treat the CBX SPA as

; where the successful claimant’s actual present insolvency is established.  However,  where a party seeking a stay of enforcement is able to produce clear, objective evidence of the other party’s  actual present  insolvency, that suffices to give pause to the enforcement process of the adjudication determination. There is no need to produce further evidence of the possibility of non-recovery, as the term “useful indicator” would suggest. Conversely, even where actual present insolvency is not established, it should remain open to a party seeking a stay to produce some other

response  to the defendants’ first submission  regarding  the court’s power to grant a stay pursuant to  s 18 read with para 9  of  the First Schedule  to  the SCJA,  the plaintiff submitted that  there was no multiplicity of proceedings warranting the court’s exercise of its discretion.  This was because (a) the FJC  was not the forum to adjudicate the issue of minority oppression and consequential remedies;  and (b) the issues arising for the court’s determination in the Suit were entirely different from those

;affidavits filed in the Action as his evidence-in-chief. That evidence set out the history underlying the dispute between the parties and established the balance of the Outstanding Debt in the figure set out  at [1]  above. His evidence also showed that, in seeking to have the Action stayed in favour of Saudi Arabia as the appropriate forum, OWG had told the  court that interest could be awarded by the courts there, in an attempt to show that there was no detriment to the  plaintiff in having liability under the OWG Guarantee determined in that jurisdiction.  11  

the words, “No action shall be brought”, covered all actions irrespective of where the cause of action arose, citing various textbooks to the same effect in relation to the equivalent wording in the  English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. The Singapore Court of Appeal in  Star City, to which I have already referred, describes the provisions of  s  5(2) of the Act as “procedural” so that it fell to be applied by the Singapore Courts as part of the law of the forum (see in particular  [29]). The Court endorsed  Selvam J’s  conclusions on  

proceedings are not the forum for parties to vent their frustrations. The parties are to address the financial consequences of their marriage breakdown in the present court proceedings, where the focus ought to be on the relevant issues in the division of assets and maintenance. I have already stated what the Court of Appeal has instructed in  UYQ v UYP  in terms of how to conduct the AM proceedings and presenting relevant evidence in the spirit in which  ANJ v ANK  [2015] 4 SLR 1043 ought to be understood. Parties should use therapeutic services to support them in respect of

January 2017 Non-Prosecution Agreement between the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Las Vegas Sands (“LVS”)  (“the DOJ Agreement”); and (b) the 7 April 2016  Order by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) instituting cease–and–desist proceedings against LVS  (“the SEC Order”). The  DOJ Agreement and the SEC Order  are collectively referred to  hereafter  as the “FCPA  Findings”. The plaintiffs characterise their fraud allegations as procedural fraud (eg, fraud by a party, suppression of documentary evidence or perjury) constituting a

;      Preliminary matters3    At the outset, two issues need to be determined.4    First, there is the question of the 20% discount  on account of  the alleged breach of ORC 559. These proceedings are not the appropriate forum for dealing with any  alleged  infraction of ORC 559. In particular, ORC 559 permitted the parties to publish details about the relevant arbitrations where “such disclosure ... falls within an exception to the obligation of confidentiality in arbitration under Singapore law”. 

---

preliminary findings. First, these proceedings were not the appropriate forum for dealing with any alleged infraction of the Order. The court had not investigated the circumstances of the relevant incident. If the Plaintiffs were of the view that there had been a breach of the Order which needed to be sanctioned, they should take out an appropriate summons for that purpose (at [4]).   7. Second, as to the proper interpretation of the transfer order, the court held the following: Seen in its factual context, the transfer order did not decide whether Appendix G should apply to pre- or post-transfer