Virendra Kumar Ahuja 22 April 2015 Valerie Thean JC: Introduction 1       This was an appeal against a decision of a District Judge (“the Judge) to grant a stay of a nullity suit on the ground of forum non conveniens. I heard and dismissed the appeal and now give my grounds of decision. 2       I should mention that this was a decision of the High Court in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction in family matters heard on 8 January 2015. Under s 34(7) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322

In the high court of the republic of singapore[2016] SGHC  112Suit No 605 of 2015 (Registrar’s Appeal No  3 of  2016)Between(1)Mann Holdings Pte  Ltd(2)Chew  Ghim  Bok…  PlaintiffsAndUng  Yoke Hong…  Defendantgrounds of decision[Civil Procedure] — [Forum non  conveniens]   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.Mann Holdings Pte

In the high court of the republic of singapore[2016] SGHC 40Suit No 236 of 2015Between  (1)ACCENT DELIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD(2)XITRANS FINANCE LTD        ... PlaintiffsAnd(1)YVES CHARLES EDGAR BOUVIER (2)(3)MEI INVEST LIMITEDTANIA RAPPO... Defendantsgrounds of decision[Conflict of Laws] [Forum Non Conveniens]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.Accent Delight International Ltd

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2025] SGHC 147In the matter of Originating Claim 169 of 2025(Registrar’s Appeal No 123 of 2025BetweenProtrade Steel Company Ltd… Claimant AndAussins Overseas Pte Ltd… Respondentjudgment[Conflict of Laws — Jurisdiction — Forum non conveniens] 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. Protrade Steel Co LtdvAussins Overseas Pte Ltd [2025

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2025] SGHCR 34Originating Claim No 173 of 2025 BetweenUBS Switzerland AG … ClaimantAnd(1)Koch Shipping Pte Ltd (2)Koch Refining International Pte Ltd… DefendantsJudgment[Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings — Forum non conveniens]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.UBS Switzerland AG vKoch Shipping Pte Ltd and another[2025] SGHCR 34General

In the high court of the republic of singapore[2017] SGHC  234Suit  No 7 of 2017(Summons No 416  of 2017  andSummons No  1366 of 2017)BetweenSinco Technologies Pte Ltd …  Plaintiff  And(1)Singapore Chi Cheng Pte Ltd (2)Chang Tsuei-Yun…  DefendantsGROUNDS OF DECISION[Conflict of laws] — [Natural forum] — [Forum non conveniens][Conflict of laws] — [Natural forum] — [Stay of proceedings]   This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in

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

could prevent a more appropriate forum from determining what is in the best interest of the child. It is emphasised here that to allow a court with substantial connection to the dispute to determine the matter is not necessarily inconsistent with the welfare principle. The welfare principle does not invariably require that the Singapore courts decide on the merits of the case afresh. This is further explained below. 14     It is well accepted in Singapore that the doctrine of forum non conveniens remains relevant in matrimonial proceedings, including proceedings involving

forum non conveniens. The principles are enunciated in the Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (“The Spiliada”). The Spiliada has been approved and followed by the Court of Appeal in Singapore and the most recent decisions are: Rickshaw Investments Ltd and Another v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377 (“Rickshaw Investments”), CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543

In the high court of the republic of singapore[2016] SGHC  218Suit No 298 of 2015 (Summons  No 4802 of 2015)Between(1)Kioumji  &  Eslim  Law Firm  (2)Yahya Lutfi Khader…  PlaintiffsAnd(1)Rotary Engineering Limited(2)Roger Chia Kim  Piow(3)Chia Kim Hung…  Defendantsgrounds of decision[Conflict of Laws]  — [Natural forum] — [Forum non  conveniens][Conflict of Laws] — [Choice of law] — [Tort] — [Conspiracy][Conflict of Laws] — [Choice of law] — [Contract]     This judgment is subject to final editorial