service out of jurisdiction,  to  stay  the  proceedings on forum non conveniens  (“FNC”)  grounds, or  to  stay  the  proceedings in favour of arbitration.  10    CA 155 is SBI’s appeal against the Judge’s decision  in Registrar’s Appeal No 227 of 2018  to dismiss SBI’s application to stay  the SBI IPU Claim  on FNC grounds. 11    The remaining appeals arise from Summons No 3235 of 2018, in which AOPL and Mr Bhasi  applied  to set aside the orders  for

In the high court of the republic of singapore[2020] SGHC 249Suit No 897 of 2019 (Registrar’s Appeal No 166 of 2020)BetweenTecnomar & Associates Pte Ltd… PlaintiffAndSBM  Offshore N V…  Defendantgrounds of decision[Civil Procedure]  —  [Service] —  [Out of jurisdiction] —  [Material non-disclosure]      This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law

    In the  COURT OF APPEAL  of the republic of singapore[2020] SGCA(I) 4Civil Appeal  No 180  of 2019BetweenOffshoreworks  Global (L) Ltd…  AppellantAndPOSH Semco Pte Ltd…  RespondentIn the matter of  SIC/Suit  No 1  of 2019BetweenPOSH  Semco Pte Ltd…  PlaintiffAnd(1)Makamin  Petroleum Services Co(2)Offshoreworks  Global (L) Ltd…  Defendantsjudgment  [Credit and Security] — [Guarantees and  indemnities][Civil Procedure] — [Rules of court] — [Non-compliance]   

; Returning to the proper-forum issues in the Singapore proceedings, on 14 August 2019 the judge rendered her decision allowing Civelli’s  forum non conveniens  application to stay Mulacek’s counterclaim subject to  the respondents’  undertaking to discontinue the Singapore suits, and dismissing Mulacek’s application for an anti-suit injunction. This brings us to the present appeals.  6    The applicable principles are not in dispute. The resolution of CA 173 hinges on the  natural  forum enquiry, at the first stage of which a defendant

In the  GENERAL DIVISION OF  THE  high court of the republic of singapore[2021] SGHC  130Suit No 584 of 2019BetweenCheryl Tan Yi Lin…  PlaintiffAndAIA Singapore Pte Ltd…  Defendantgrounds of decision[Insurance]  —  [General principles] —  [Claims][Insurance]  —  [General principles] —  [Non-disclosure][Contract]  —  [Misrepresentation] —  [Fraudulent]      This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the

; for the resolution of the dispute, it was essential to examine whether there was any available competing jurisdiction. The High Judge below (“the Judge”), for the purposes of the  forum non conveniens  analysis, found that the claim was time-barred in the other competing jurisdiction, Senegal. The Judge went on rightly to find that as the plaintiff had not acted reasonably in failing to issue a protective writ in Senegal, it could not rely on the unavailability of Senegal to tilt the balance in favour of Singapore as the  forum conveniens. However, the court  below  

---

within one of the jurisdictional gateways in O 11 r 1 (“the jurisdictional requirement”); (b) the claim must have a sufficient degree of merit (“the merits requirement”); and (c) Singapore must be the more appropriate forum for the trial or determination of the action (“the forum non conveniens requirement”). The court must also bear in mind that a finding on the jurisdictional requirement may inevitably have an impact on the merits requirement. The court should not examine the three requirements in isolation, but must proceed to examine whether its findings in

Suit 709 of 2019 (“Suit 709”) on the grounds of  forum non conveniens.    Background2    The first plaintiff, Raffles Education Corporation Limited  (“P1”), is a Singapore company and wholly owns the second plaintiff, Raffles Education Investment (India) Pte Ltd  (“P2”),  a Singapore company,  and the third plaintiff, Raffles Design International India  Pvt  Ltd  (“P3”), an India company. The plaintiffs are private education providers and  will be  collectively  referred to  as the  

a serious issue to be tried, so as to enable him to exercise his discretion to grant leave, before he goes on to consider the exercise of that discretion, with particular reference to the issue of forum  conveniens.[emphasis added]35  

;[1987] AC 460 (“Spiliada”) in order to determine the appropriate forum.  At the first stage, the Judge held that the governing law of the dispute was not determinative, since the trust-related claims were governed by Singapore law, while the negligence and misrepresentation claims were governed by Swiss law (the Judgment at [55]–[58]).  The location of the evidence and the ease of trial, on the other hand, were found to point firmly in favour of Switzerland: the oral testimony of  Mr Lescaudron was  critical  to the defendants’ defence, but he was non-  

---

Singapore is the appropriate forum to hear the claims. Pertinent and significant points of the judgment The court holds that the clause found in the Trust Deed in the present case specifying the Singapore courts as the “forum for the administration” of the Trust was intended to specify the supervisory court for the general administration of the Trust, rather than function as an exclusive jurisdiction clause for the settlement of disputes between trustees and beneficiaries. The court finds that the fact that relevant witnesses and documents are located in Switzerland is

In the high court of the republic of singapore[2020] SGHC  284Suit No 34 of 2017 (Summonses Nos 5512 and 5513 of 2019)BetweenChristopher Yun Hian Chen…  PlaintiffAnd(1)BHNV Online Ltd(2)Dean Taylor(3)Tom Williams(4)Michael Cooper(5)Ben Yitzhak  Zur(6)Gilad  Tisona…  Defendantsgrounds of decision[Conflict of Laws] — [Choice of jurisdiction] — [Exclusive][Conflict of Laws] — [Natural forum][Civil Procedure] — [Service]  — [Out of jurisdiction][Civil Procedure] — [Writ of summons]      This judgment is subject to final editorial