the Leave Order (“the Disclosure Issue”). The Proper Forum Issue17 The Proper Forum Issue is to be determined by applying the same test that is applied when considering a stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens, ie, the two-stage test in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (“Spiliada”). 18 At the first stage of the Spiliada test, the court determines whether, prima facie, there is some other available forum that is more appropriate for the case to be tried. In making this determination, the court undertakes an analysis of connecting factors, including (i

of China (“PRC”). The 2nd Defendant’s alternative prayer is for the present suit against him to be stayed on the grounds of forum non conveniens, with Australia being the more appropriate forum for the trial. The other two defendants, namely Tong Chi Ho (“the 1st Defendant”) and Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd (“the 3rd Defendant”), were not parties to the application, although their respective counsel attended the hearing on watching brief. 2 I heard the application on 25 March 2022 and now dismiss the application in its entirety for the reasons set out in this judgment. Background Facts3 The

nonetheless not be granted (“Stage Two”).It must be borne in mind that in Rappo, the question before the court was whether the proceedings should be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens. 27 In the context of an application for leave to serve out of jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that Singapore is, on balance, the more appropriate forum; Singapore would be the more appropriate forum if it has the most real and substantial connection with the disputes raised: Oro Negro Drilling Pte Ltd and others v Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro SAPI de CV and

China (“PRC”) or, in the alternative, for Suit 1046 to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens. The third defendant made a similar application by HC/SUM 1361/2022 (“SUM 1361/2022”) to set aside an order 2 Foot Note 2 ×

plaintiff’s application in HC/OS 1215/2021 (“OS 1215”), seeking a number of declarations concerning the circumstances of the defendant’s departure from the plaintiff’s employment and her corresponding entitlements. In response to OS 1215, the defendant filed HC/SUM 308/2022 (“SUM 308”) applying to stay the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens. The learned assistant registrar (“the AR”) dismissed SUM 308 and the defendant appealed. 3 After hearing the parties’ submissions, I allowed the defendant’s appeal in HC/RA 101/2022 (“RA 101”) and set aside the AR’s order in SUM 308. The

In the COURT OF APPEAL of the republic of singapore[2023] SGCA 7Civil Appeal No 16 of 2022BetweenTan Beng Hui Carolyn… AppellantAndThe Law Society of Singapore… RespondentgRounds of decision [Civil Procedure — Appeals — Forum] [Courts and Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction — Appellate][Legal Profession — Professional conduct — Breach — Penalty] 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 Reports.Tan Beng Hui CarolynvLaw Society of

---

the Appellate Division of the High Court, as the appeal concerned a case relating to administrative law. The Law Society disagreed. The Appellant also sought to challenge the Law Society’s determination on the basis that the Law Society acted outside its jurisdiction when it effectively disciplined the Appellant for making a criminal complaint, when such a matter was to be determined by a criminal court. The Appellant also submitted that the Law Society’s reply affidavit for OS 432 contained hearsay.The decision of the Court 11 The Appellate Division was the correct forum to hear the appeal

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2022] SGHC 206Suit No 692 of 2021 (Summonses Nos 1092 and 1856 of 2022)BetweenSophie Shen (formerly known as Sophie Luo)… PlaintiffAnd(1)Xia Wei Ping(2)Li Zhe(3)Alpheus Management Limited… DefendantsJudgment[Conflict of Laws — Jurisdiction][Conflict of Laws — Natural forum][Civil Procedure — Service — Service out of jurisdiction]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

of injuring Chantal and/or the Estate.The SICC therefore made orders in relation to the respondent’s claims for relief, including the taking of accounts. Proceedings in California and Singapore23 After Suit 3 was filed in November 2017, BCS commenced the Californian Proceedings on or around 8 August 2019. On 3 October 2019, the respondent and BCS Pharma (the defendants in the Californian Proceedings) applied for those proceedings to be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. This, however, was disallowed by the US District Court on 17 April 2020. 24 On 24 June 2020, the

---

, focusing on the judicial estoppel claim. Decision on appeal9 The issuance of the ASI in the present case could be justified on two jurisdictional bases. First, an abuse of the forum’s court process, or the need to protect the processes, jurisdiction or judgments of the forum court. Second, vexatious and oppressive conduct, in that it would also be vexatious and oppressive to the respondent for BCS to seek to relitigate in the Californian Proceedings matters which were already decided between the parties by reason of the Suit 3 Judgment. Under the first jurisdictional basis, the grant of an ASI

according to applicable the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 2007 Revision][Banking — Letters of credit — Confirming bank — Sanctions clause — Whether sanctions clause valid and enforceable — Whether sanctions clause unworkable][Banking — Letters of credit — Confirming bank — Sanctions clause — Whether sanctions clause valid and enforceable — Whether sanctions clause is non-documentary condition]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

Amended Claim (in the Rutmet Ontario Action). At the time when the AR had dismissed SUM 3537, the statement of claim in the Rutmet Ontario Action had not yet been amended to include the allegation that the assignment of the CG might not be valid. On 14 October 2021, the Judge dismissed UDTG’s appeal in RA 138.17 On 11 November 2021, UDTG filed the present application for leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision. Its intention to appeal for a stay is based only on a case management stay and not on the ground of forum non conveniens, although the latter was a ground before the Judge.18&emsp