Go Go Delicacy v Carona Holdings: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration Agreement
In Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd v Carona Holdings Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a Registrar's Appeal regarding a stay of proceedings pending arbitration. Go Go Delicacy sued Carona Holdings and others for breach of a franchise agreement and related claims. The defendants applied for a stay of proceedings based on an arbitration clause in the franchise agreement. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that a stay was impractical because not all defendants were party to the arbitration agreement and the defendants should have sought an order to prevent the filing of a defence pending the stay application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed a stay application pending arbitration, focusing on whether filing a defense constitutes a 'step in proceedings'.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carona Holdings Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Carona Fast Food Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Foodplex Trading Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Yap Teck Song | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Lee Boon Hiok | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Alfred Dodwell of Alfred Dodwell |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Adrian Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Tan Ijin | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Alfred Dodwell | Alfred Dodwell |
4. Facts
- Go Go Delicacy sued Carona Holdings for breach of a franchise agreement.
- The franchise agreement contained an arbitration clause.
- The defendants applied for a stay of proceedings based on the arbitration clause.
- The plaintiff gave the defendants 48 hours' notice to file their defence.
- The defendants did not file a defence, arguing that it was not required due to the pending stay application.
- The Assistant Registrar dismissed the stay application and granted judgment in default of defence.
- Only the first defendant was a signatory to the Franchise Agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd v Carona Holdings Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 173/2007, RA 162/2007, [2007] SGHC 165
- Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd v Carona Holdings Pte Ltd and Others, , [2007] SGHC 97
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Franchise Agreement made between Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd and Carona Holdings Pte Ltd | |
| Writ of summons with statement of claim filed | |
| Defendants served with writ of summons | |
| Defendants entered an appearance | |
| Defendants requested confirmation that the action would be stayed or struck out | |
| Plaintiff agreed that the matter should be referred to arbitration | |
| Defendants' solicitors stated that the action should be dismissed or stayed | |
| Plaintiff expressed hope that the defendants would agree to the matter proceeding in court | |
| Defendants requested confirmation of the plaintiff’s position on arbitration | |
| Defendants applied for a stay of proceedings | |
| Plaintiff gave 48 hours’ notice to the defendants to file their defence | |
| Defendants' solicitors pointed out that the defendants had made the stay application | |
| Plaintiff applied for judgment in default of defence against the defendants | |
| Assistant Registrar dismissed the stay application and granted the judgment application | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Court Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants should have sought an order to prevent the filing of a defence pending the stay application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Filing of defence after applying for stay
- Step in the proceedings
- Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that a stay of proceedings was not practical as only the first defendant was a signatory to the Franchise Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of arbitration clause
- Parties bound by arbitration clause
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Return of Moneys Paid
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Return of Moneys Paid
- Damages for Spoilt Food Supplies
- Undue Influence
- Duress
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 382 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant cannot be compelled to file its defence while a stay application is pending. |
| Chong Long Hak Kee Construction Trading Co v IEC Global Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that taking a step in the proceedings would have fatal consequences for a stay application. |
| Ford’s Hotel Company Limited v Bartlett | House of Lords | Yes | [1896] AC 1 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the proposition that applying for an extension of time to file a defence was a “step in the proceedings”. |
| Sanwell Corp v Trans Resources Corp Sdn Bhd | Federal Court | Yes | [2002] 2 MLJ 625 | Malaysia | Cited as authority for the proposition that applying for an extension of time to file a defence was a “step in the proceedings”. |
| Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited and distinguished regarding whether an application to extend time to serve a defence constitutes a “step in the proceedings”. |
| Yeoh Poh San v Won Siok Wan | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 91 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that when a stay is in issue, it should be determined before any further step is taken. |
| The Jarguh Sawit | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 648 | Singapore | Cited in Yeoh Poh San v Won Siok Wan [2002] 4 SLR 91 regarding the principle that where a plaintiff was aware that a defendant had filed an appeal against the refusal to order a stay, he should not insist on the filing of a defence pending the hearing of the appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Stay of proceedings
- Franchise agreement
- Step in the proceedings
- Arbitration clause
- Judgment in default of defence
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Stay of proceedings
- Franchise agreement
- Singapore
- Civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Breach of Contract | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law