Singapore waters and was arrested on the plaintiff’s application. The (by now former) owner of the “Sea Justice” entered an appearance (qua defendant) in ADM 61 and provided security for the release of the “Sea Justice”.3 The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in ADM 61 is for damages and indemnification from loss arising from the Collision. The defendant applied by HC/SUM 4434/2022 (“SUM 4434”) for, among others: (a) ADM 61 to be stayed in favour of the court proceedings in the PRC on the grounds of forum non conveniens; (b) the security it had provided in the Singapore action to be

) a declaration that the Singapore courts have no jurisdiction against Luckin;(b) an order to set aside the leave granted to the Claimants to serve the Originating Claim on Luckin in the Cayman Islands;(c) further and/or in the alternative, an order that the Singapore action against Luckin be stayed because of a lack of jurisdiction by the Singapore courts; or(d) an order that the Singapore action against Luckin be stayed on the grounds of forum non conveniens.14 The DR heard the application on 25 August 2023. He delivered his decision on 4 September 2023. We set out below

---

foreign stock exchange in the United States of America (“USA”) has no bearing on the crucial question of whether Singapore is the natural forum for the resolution of the claims against it. As Luckin is defending claims based on misrepresentations it had allegedly made, whether Singapore is the natural forum is governed by established principles on the factors connecting these alleged misrepresentations to Singapore: at [22].Background 1 Luckin is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its shares listed on NASDAQ in the USA.2 Interactive Digital Finance Limited (“IDFL”) and Tiah Thee Kian

contentious disputes between trustees and beneficiaries (Ivanishvili at [76]).17 The AR decided as follows:(a) The crux of OA 820 was the seeking of documents and information relating to the trusts and the claims involved questions relating to the administration and running of the trusts. Thus, the claims in OA 820 fell within the scope of the forum for administration provision in cll 2(a) and 2(c) in both the AT Deed and the A2T Deed.(b) In view of the finding in (a) above, it was not necessary to consider the forum non conveniens analysis.(c) The claims relating to The Anchor Two

also in our earlier grounds of decision concerning two interlocutory appeals in Oro Negro Drilling Pte Ltd and others v Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro SAPI de CV and others and another appeal (Jesus Angel Guerra Mendez, non-party) [2020] 1 SLR 226 (“Oro Negro (CA)”). We reproduce below the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal.7 As a matter of terminology, we note that restructuring proceedings commenced in Mexico are referred to as a concurso mercantile. As the Judge did at [8] of his GD, we refer to such restructuring proceedings as a “concurso”. A concurso

---

Injunctions. 12 On 12 September 2019, the Court of Appeal in Oro Negro Drilling Pte Ltd and others v Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro SAPI de CV and others and another appeal (Jesus Angel Guerra Mendez, non-party) [2020] 1 SLR 226 (“Oro Negro (CA)”) allowed the appeals brought by the respondents against this decision, thereby restoring the Interim Injunctions. As there was no time limit imposed on the Interim Injunctions, they remained in force from September 2019 up to March 2023, the time when final judgment was entered in favour of the respondents in OS 126 by the court below. As

and oftentimes, some of these would be non-contractual in nature: see, eg, David Joseph QC, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and their Enforcement (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd Ed, 2015) at para 4.65. The court’s task is to resolve the tension arising from such competing non-contractual claims in its analysis, including whether they should be heard together or separately from those contractual claims falling within the scope of the parties’ dispute resolution agreement. While parties may seek to rely on the various legal “tests” developed in case law, ultimately, it is important to recognise that

---

anti-suit injunctions with the position in applications for a stay of proceedings based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause and under s 6 of the IAA.•  The Court of Appeal also cautioned against over-reliance on any presumption that parties must have intended that all disputes are to be heard together. If upon examining the text of the agreement and the nature of the competing claims, a claim is not within its ambit, then forum fragmentation is inevitable and the courts should not steer away from that outcome. 1 This was an appeal against the High Court Judge’s decision in HC/SUM

child. The Respondent was compelled to make her application under the GIA and not as part of the ancillary matters in a divorce because she was not seeking a divorce in Singapore. Since there were no conflicting divorce actions in Indonesia and Singapore, there was no issue regarding forum non conveniens. Had that been an issue, Singapore would likely have been found to be the more appropriate forum for the reasons apparent in this judgment – essentially, the only connections with Indonesia are that the Respondent is an Indonesian citizen and the children have both Indonesian and Singapore

, the judge did not accept that argument in concluding that Singapore was forum conveniens and that was not a factor which the judge had considered in allowing RV1’s appeal against the AR’s decision. Before the Court of Appeal, RV1 took the position that its claim was no longer time-barred under Senegalese law, in order to rebut ICS’s submission in the appeal that its claim lacked merit. The Court of Appeal found RV1’s positions before the judge and on appeal inconsistent and that RV1’s conduct would have attracted the doctrine of approbation and reprobation if the judge had, in finding that

). Further, such a position was congruent with the ideals and intent of the ROC 2021: (a) the factors listed in paragraph 63 of the SCPD 2021 were expressly stated to be “non-exhaustive”; (b) the Civil Justice Commission, Civil Justice Commission Report (29 December 2017) (Chairperson: Justice Tay Yong Kwang) (the “CJC Report”) stated that O 8 r 1 of the ROC 2021 only prescribed criteria and did not enumerate all permissible cases in which service out of jurisdiction could be ordered; and (c) the intent of the CJC Report was to avoid a situation where a “particular category of cases which could and

the Judge to decide whether the directors themselves were entitled to an ASI, but the Judge held that there was a strong analogy with Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd and Gunvor Singapore Pte Ltd v Xiang Da Marine Pte Ltd [2020] 1 All ER (Comm) 61 (“Clearlake”), where it was noted that the objective interpretation of an exclusive forum clause would tend to include a tort claim against a non-party where that was necessary to prevent forum fragmentation (see the Judgment at [179]–[180]).The parties’ arguments on appeal25 On appeal, Asiana raises several discrete arguments. These may be summarised

---

another party (B) against a non-party (C), where it could show either that the clause was intended to also cover the non-party or that the real purpose for suing the non-party was to bypass the exclusive forum clause in a manner making the foreign proceedings vexatious and oppressive between A and B. To the extent that C was able to show it would be vexatious and oppressive to C to allow the foreign proceedings to continue against it, it too would be able, in its own right, to seek an anti-suit injunction against B: at [84].•  It sufficed for a party relying on an arbitration agreement to

.(a) In Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal [2021] 1 SLR 342 (CA) the appellant had “conceded, as a matter of fact” that its claim under certain contracts were time-barred under Senegalese law in aid of its argument that Singapore was the forum conveniens to try the dispute (at [107]). The Court of Appeal recognised that the appellant “might not have appreciated that this concession would have a consequential impact on the merits” but held that the failure to appreciate the impact of its concession “does not change the analysis.” This is because “[a] factual