UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation: Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause & Forum Non Conveniens

UCO Bank, an Indian bank, sued Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd, a Singapore company, in the High Court of Singapore, claiming damages as a holder of bills of lading against Golden Shore, the owner of the vessel "ASEAN PIONEER." Golden Shore applied for a stay of the action, arguing that clause 17 in the bills of lading was an exclusive jurisdiction provision requiring claims to be dealt with in India and that India was a more appropriate forum. The Assistant Registrar granted a stay based on the exclusive jurisdiction clause, but the judge allowed UCO's appeal, finding that while clause 17 was an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the stay should be refused. The court found that UCO had shown strong cause for the case to be heard in Singapore.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

UCO Bank sued Golden Shore Transportation over bills of lading. The court addressed whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause applied and if India was a more appropriate forum.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UCO BankPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal allowedWon
Golden Shore Transportation Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationStay of action soughtLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sarjit Singh GillShook Lin & Bok
Dylan LeeShook Lin & Bok
Toh Kian SingRajah & Tann
Aileen BoeyRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. UCO Bank claimed damages against Golden Shore as a holder of bills of lading.
  2. Golden Shore applied for a stay of action based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause and forum non conveniens.
  3. UCO Bank was the holder of original bills of lading for Sarawak Round Logs.
  4. Golden Shore issued switched bills of lading without requiring the original bills to be exchanged.
  5. Buyers in India presented the switched bills and obtained delivery of the logs.
  6. SOM International Pte Ltd did not pay UCO Bank for the logs.
  7. UCO Bank commenced action against Golden Shore for damages.

5. Formal Citations

  1. UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd, Suit 1582/2001, RA 261/2002, [2003] SGHC 137

6. Timeline

DateEvent
SOM International Pte Ltd applied to UCO Bank for the issuance of letters of credit.
SOM International Pte Ltd applied to UCO Bank for the issuance of letters of credit.
Dates on original bills of lading.
Dates on original bills of lading.
Dates on switched bills of lading.
Dates on switched bills of lading.
Vendors presented documents under the letters of credit to HSBC.
Buyers in India presented switched bills and obtained delivery of logs.
Buyers in India presented switched bills and obtained delivery of logs.
Rajah & Tann wrote to UCO Bank to ask for the return of the original bills.
Shook Lin & Bok replied to reserve UCO Bank’s rights against Golden Shore.
UCO Bank commenced action against Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd.
Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd made the stay application.
First affidavit of Mr. Sum was served.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
    • Outcome: The court found that clause 17 was an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of 'claims' to include suits
      • Intention of contracting parties
  2. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court found that India was not the more appropriate forum.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Availability of evidence
      • Connection of parties to the forum
      • Genuine desire for trial in the contractual forum
      • Risk of time bar in the contractual forum
  3. Strong Cause
    • Outcome: The court found that UCO had shown strong cause.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Availability of evidence
      • Connection of parties to the forum
      • Genuine desire for trial in the contractual forum
      • Risk of time bar in the contractual forum

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Delivery without presentation of bill of lading

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Shipping Law

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Shipping
  • Logistics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR 253SingaporeCited regarding the interpretation of 'claims' in the context of a notification of loss or damage.
The Sinar MasHigh CourtYes[1982] 1 MLJ 279MalaysiaCited for the interpretation of the word 'claims' in a bill of lading clause, but the court declined to follow it.
The FehmarnCourt of AppealYes[1958] 1 All ER 333England and WalesCited as a case that did not provide support for the decision in The Sinar Mas regarding the interpretation of clause 17.
The Adolf WarskiUnknownYes[1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107UnknownCited as a case that did not provide support for the decision in The Sinar Mas regarding the interpretation of clause 17.
Maharani Woollen Mills Co v Anchor LineUnknownYes[1927] 29 Lloyd’s Rep 169UnknownCited as a case with a similar provision construed as a jurisdiction clause.
The MediaUnknownYes41 Lloyd’s Rep 80UnknownCited as a case with a similar clause as in Maharani Woollen Mills, where the same conclusion was reached.
The Asia PlutusHigh CourtYes[1990] SLR 543SingaporeCited as a case where Yong Pung How J referred to The Media as involving a jurisdiction clause.
The EleftheriaUnknownYes[1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237UnknownCited as a case where Brandon J summarised the principles established by six authorities in a stay application, one of which was The Media.
The Jian HeCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR 8SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court is not bound to order a stay where there is strong cause why UCO should not be required to commence action in India.
The El AmriaUnknownYes[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119UnknownCited regarding the 'strong cause' test in stay applications.
Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd v Chatsworth Timber Corp Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1975-1977] SLR 258SingaporeCited regarding the circumstances the courts would take into account when deciding whether to grant a stay.
The Endurance 1High CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR 190SingaporeCited regarding possession with an assertion of title.
Citi-March v NeptuneUnknownYes[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 72UnknownCited regarding the time bar consideration.
The MC PearlUnknownYes[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 566UnknownCited regarding the failure of a plaintiff to commence proceedings in time within the contractual jurisdiction.
The KH EnterpriseUnknownYes[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 593UnknownCited regarding forum shopping.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460United KingdomCited regarding the explanation for allowing time to lapse in the contractual forum.
The BergenUnknownYes[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 710UnknownCited regarding the explanation for allowing time to lapse in the contractual forum.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bills of Lading Act (Cap 384)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bills of Lading
  • Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Switched Bills
  • Stay of Action
  • Strong Cause
  • Port of Delivery
  • Time Bar
  • Original Bills

15.2 Keywords

  • bills of lading
  • exclusive jurisdiction clause
  • forum non conveniens
  • Singapore
  • shipping
  • banking

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bills of Lading Act90
Shipping Law80
Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause75
Contract Law70
Forum Non Conveniens65
Commercial Law60
Commercial Disputes50
Jurisdiction40
Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Shipping
  • Banking
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws