Baridhi Shipping Lines v Sea Consortium: Forum Non Conveniens & Defamation

Baridhi Shipping Lines Ltd and HRC, the Plaintiffs, sued Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Wong, the Defendants, in the Singapore High Court for defamation. The Defendants applied for a stay of the action, arguing that Bangladesh was the more appropriate forum. The court initially granted the stay. However, after the Bangladeshi court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs applied to lift the stay. The Singapore High Court allowed the application, finding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate that Bangladesh was the more appropriate forum.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' application to lift the stay is allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court lifts stay of defamation action after Bangladeshi court declines jurisdiction, finding Singapore the appropriate forum. Key issue: forum non conveniens.

1.7 Decision Date

26 June 2002

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sea Consortium Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Application to lift the stay is allowed	Lost	Yang Ing Loong of Allen & Gledhill
Baridhi Shipping Lines Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application to lift the stay is allowed	Won	Chang Man Phing of Harry Elias Partnership Doris Chua of Harry Elias Partnership
HRC	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application to lift the stay is allowed	Won	Chang Man Phing of Harry Elias Partnership Doris Chua of Harry Elias Partnership
Wong	Defendant	Individual	Application to lift the stay is allowed	Lost	Yang Ing Loong of Allen & Gledhill

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Yang Ing Loong	Allen & Gledhill
Chang Man Phing	Harry Elias Partnership
Doris Chua	Harry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

Baridhi is the agent in Bangladesh for Evergreen Marine Corporation (EMC).
HRC is a Bangladeshi feeder operator.
SCPL is a Singaporean feeder operator and competitor of HRC in Bangladesh.
Wong is a director of SCPL.
Wong sent an e-mail on 6 April 2001 that the Plaintiffs allege was defamatory.
The e-mail was sent to officers of EMC in Taiwan, Singapore, and Sri Lanka.
The e-mail concerned the legality of using SCPL to carry cargo out of Bangladesh.
A Bangladeshi court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the defamation claim.

5. Formal Citations

Baridhi Shipping Lines Ltd and Another v Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 756/2001, SIC 837/2002, [2002] SGHC 134

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1989-01-01	SCPL began operating feeder services in Bangladesh.
2000-04-15	SCPL terminated agency arrangement with Baridhi.
2001-03-27	SCPL commenced legal proceedings in Bangladesh against the Director-General (Shipping).
2001-03-27	Bangladeshi High Court made an interim order.
2001-04-04	Martin Chen of EMC sent an e-mail to EMC’s agent in Singapore and Colombo.
2001-04-05	HRC responded by e-mail to Chen.
2001-04-06	Wong published an e-mail containing words that are defamatory of the Plaintiffs.
2001-05-08	Interim order stayed on application by HRC.
2001-06-18	Writ filed in Singapore.
2001-06-20	Writ served on the Defendants in Singapore.
2001-07-04	Defendants applied to stay the action.
2001-10-26	Senior Assistant Registrar ruled in favor of the Defendants and stayed the present action.
2002-01-17	Appeal dismissed.
2002-02-07	Plaintiffs commenced an action in the Bangladeshi court.
2002-02-20	Joint District Judge of the 5th Court in Dhaka ruled that the Court or any Court of Bangladesh do not have jurisdiction to proceed with or try with the case as per law.
2002-03-19	Affidavit of Foo Say Nong filed.
2002-03-21	Plaintiffs took out the present application to lift the stay.
2002-06-27	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants failed to demonstrate that Bangladesh was the more appropriate forum, especially since the Bangladeshi court declined jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Appropriateness of alternative forum
  - Availability of cause of action in alternative forum
Defamation
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the merits of the defamation claim, as the issue was whether Singapore was the appropriate forum.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Meaning of defamatory words
  - Justification
  - Qualified privilege

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Special Damages
Exemplary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Shipping Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a Singapore court must be convinced that a foreign court is clearly more appropriate to justify denying plaintiffs their day in Singapore court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Bangladesh Flag Vessels (Protection) Shipping Ordinance, 1982	Bangladesh

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Forum non conveniens
Defamation
Feeder operator
Waiver certificate
Bangladesh Flag Vessels (Protection) Shipping Ordinance, 1982

15.2 Keywords

Defamation
Forum non conveniens
Shipping
Bangladesh
Singapore
Jurisdiction

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Natural forum	90
Jurisdiction	85
Defamation Law	70
Civil Procedure	50

16. Subjects

Conflict of Laws
Defamation
Shipping