In the COURT OF APPEAL of the republic of singapore[2023] SGCA 22Court of Appeal / Civil Appeal No 110 of 2016 (Summons No 2 of 2023)BetweenXitrans Finance Ltd… Applicant AndTania Rappo… RespondentCourt of Appeal / Civil Appeal No 113 of 2016 (Summons No 3 of 2023)BetweenXitrans Finance Ltd… Applicant And(1)Yves Charles Edgar Bouvier(2)MEI Invest Limited… RespondentsJudgment[Conflict of Laws — Natural forum — Lifting of forum non conveniens stay]This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with

their jurisdiction to hear the action and that all proceedings in OC 385 should be stayed. In HC/SUM 2259/2023 (“SUM 2259”), the defendants applied for a stay of the proceedings in OC 385 in favour of the Malaysian courts on the sole ground of forum non conveniens. HC/RA 193/2023 (“RA 193”) is the defendants’ appeal against the whole of the learned Assistant Registrar’s (the “AR”) decision to dismiss the application in SUM 2259.FactsThe parties3 The first claimant in OC 385 is Mr Tan Wei Heng Kelvin (“Mr Tan”), a Singapore citizen. 1

LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.Chang Chee Kheo vFatfish Investment Partners Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHCR 12General Division of the High Court — Originating Claim No 163 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 1517 and 1518 of 2023) AR Perry Peh5 July 202316 August 2023 Judgment reserved.AR Perry Peh: Introduction1 HC/SUM 1517/2023 (“SUM 1517”) and HC/SUM 1518/2023 (“SUM 1518”) are applications by the defendants in HC/OC 163/2023 (“OC 163”) to stay OC 163 on the ground of forum non conveniens. The defendants contend that Malaysia is the more appropriate forum for the dispute in OC 163 to be

others[2023] SGHC 244General Division of the High Court — Originating Application No 710 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 4335 and 4336 of 2022) Hri Kumar Nair J6, 26 July 202312 September 2023 Hri Kumar Nair J:Introduction1 Should this court, despite possessing the jurisdiction to hear an application to enforce a tribunal-ordered interim measure in a Singapore-seated international arbitration (a “domestic interim measure”), nevertheless decline to exercise that jurisdiction on grounds of forum non conveniens (“FNC”)? This was the main question raised in these summonses. While the issue initially

In the APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2023] SGHC(A) 18Civil Appeal No 75 of 2022BetweenAllianz Capital Partners GmbH, Singapore Branch… Appellant AndAndress Goh… RespondentIn the matter of Originating Summons No 1215 of 2021BetweenAllianz Capital Partners GmbH, Singapore Branch… Plaintiff AndAndress Goh… Defendantjudgment[Conflict of Laws — Choice of jurisdiction — Exclusive][Conflict of Laws — Natural forum] 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

IN THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURTOF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE[2023] SGHC(I) 20Originating Application No 2 of 2023 (Summons No 13 of 2023)Between(1)W. Power Group EOOD … ClaimantAnd(1)Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd … Defendantjudgment[Civil Procedure — Costs — Quantum of costs for application for security][Civil Procedure — Rules of court — Non-compliance] 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

compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.The “Sea Justice”[2023] SGHCR 24General Division of the High Court — Admiralty in Rem No 61 of 2021 (Summons No 4434 of 2022)AR Nicholas Lai3, 16 March 2023, 27 April 2023, 28 June 2023, 13 September 2023, 3 November 202329 December 2023 AR Nicholas Lai:Introduction1 HC/SUM 4434/2022 (“SUM 4434”) is an application by the defendant (“the Defendant”) to (a) stay the Singapore proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens in favour of court proceedings in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) (“Stay

— Non approbation and reprobation]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.Leong Quee Ching KarenvLim Soon Huat and others[2023] SGHC 234General Division of the High Court — Originating Claim No 158 of 2022 (Summons No 3376 of 2022)Goh Yihan JC20 June 202323 August 2023 Judgment reserved.Goh Yihan JC:1 The claimant, Ms Leong Quee Ching Karen, is a minority shareholder of the sixth defendant, Seng Lee Holdings Pte Ltd

In the General DIVISION OFTHE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 17Originating Application No 899 of 2023BetweenDGX… ClaimantAndDGY… Defendantgrounds of decision[Conflict of Laws — Foreign judgment — Enforcement of non-money judgment under s 4(4) Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed)][Statutory Interpretation — Construction of statute]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

that extent, Burleigh House is distinguishable.35 Furthermore, I do not agree that the approach towards the interpretation of arbitration clauses as espoused in Fiona Trust should ipso facto apply to other clauses in a contract or to non-assignment clauses generally. As explained in Fiona Trust at [13], the rationale underlying that broad interpretation is that rational businesspeople are presumed to intend for all disputes arising from their relationship to be decided in the same forum. Indeed, our Court of Appeal found the Fiona Trust principle to apply to jurisdiction clauses generally