Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria: Jurisdiction over Foreign Immovable Properties in Trust Claim

In Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the appellant's application to amend her statement of claim to include claims over foreign immovable properties and sale proceeds. The court, with Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA delivering the judgment, dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that Singapore lacked jurisdiction over the foreign properties under the Moçambique rule and that Indonesia was a more appropriate forum. The case involved a trust claim by Murakami Takako, acting on behalf of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, against Wiryadi Louise Maria and others.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; the Judge’s decision to disallow the appellant’s application to include the Claims in her statement of claim is affirmed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses jurisdiction over foreign properties in a trust claim, applying the Moçambique rule and forum non conveniens.

1.7 Decision Date

11 November 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Murakami Takako	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Subramanian A Pillai of ACIES Law Corporation Devinder Rai of ACIES Law Corporation
Wiryadi Louise Maria	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Adrian Wong of Rajah & Tann LLP Andre Yeap of Rajah & Tann LLP Darren Dominic Chan of Rajah & Tann LLP
Ryuji Murakami	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won
Bahari Sjamsjur	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won
Ryuzo Murakami	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Sek Keong	Chief Justice	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Subramanian A Pillai	ACIES Law Corporation
Devinder Rai	ACIES Law Corporation
Adrian Wong	Rajah & Tann LLP
Andre Yeap	Rajah & Tann LLP
Darren Dominic Chan	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

Murakami Takako, acting on behalf of her late father's estate, sought to amend her statement of claim.
The amendments included claims to moneys in Australian bank accounts and foreign immovable properties.
The foreign properties were located in Australia and Indonesia.
The High Court allowed amendments pertaining to the Australian bank accounts but disallowed those concerning the foreign properties.
The Judge disallowed the amendments based on the Moçambique rule and forum non conveniens.
The appellant previously brought a claim relating to the Indonesian properties before the South Jakarta District Court, which was dismissed on procedural grounds.
The appellant also previously brought claims in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which were stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens.

5. Formal Citations

Murakami Takako (executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, deceased) v Wiryadi Louise Maria and Others, CA 59/2008, [2008] SGCA 44
Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louis Maria, , [2008] 3 SLR 198
Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria, , [2007] 4 SLR 565
The British South Africa Company v The Companhia de Moçambique, , [1893] AC 602
Penn v. Lord Baltimore, , [1750] 1 Ves Sen 444; 27 ER 1132
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern, , [1995] 3 SLR 97
Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Muftizade, , [1979] AC 508
Lightning v Lightning Electrical Contractors Limited, , [1998] EWHC Admin 431
Webb v Webb, , [1991] 1 WLR 1410
R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans, , [2005] Ch 153
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, , [1987] AC 460
Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia, , [1992] 2 SLR 776
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte Ltd, , [1998] 1 SLR 253
PT Hutan Domas Raya v Yue Xiu Enterprises (Holdings) Limited, , [2001] 2 SLR 49
Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull, , [2007] 1 SLR 377
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd, , [2008] SGCA 36
Murakami v Wiryadi, , [2006] NSWSC 1354
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay, , (1988) 165 CLR 197
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Proprietary Limited, , (1990) 171 CLR 538
Henry v Henry, , (1996) 185 CLR 571
CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Limited, , (1997) 189 CLR 345
Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang, , (2002) 210 CLR 491

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-11-12	Judgment reserved
2008-11-12	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction over Foreign Immovable Properties
- Outcome: The court held that it generally has no jurisdiction over claims to foreign immovable properties except for claims in equity with respect to equitable obligations.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
  - [1893] AC 602
  - [1995] 3 SLR 97
Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court held that Indonesia was a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum than Singapore for the adjudication of the claims.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1987] AC 460

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration of Trust
Equitable Relief

9. Cause of Actions

Trust Claim

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The British South Africa Company v The Companhia de Moçambique	Court of Appeal	No	[1893] AC 602	England and Wales	Cited for the Moçambique rule, which states that the court has no jurisdiction to determine the title to, or the right to possession of, any immovable property situated outside the forum.
Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louis Maria	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR 198	Singapore	Cited as the decision of the High Court judge in which he disallowed, in part, the appellant’s application to amend her statement of claim.
Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria	Court of Appeal	No	[2007] 4 SLR 565	Singapore	Cited for the background of the litigation between the parties.
Hesperides Hotels Ltd v Muftizade	House of Lords	Yes	[1979] AC 508	England and Wales	Cited for affirming the Moçambique rule and its exceptions.
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 97	Singapore	Cited for establishing that the Moçambique rule and the personal equities exception are part of Singapore law.
Penn v. Lord Baltimore	Court of Chancery	Yes	[1750] 1 Ves Sen 444; 27 ER 1132	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a court may have jurisdiction to adjudicate on and enforce a contract, or fiduciary or other equitable obligation, between and binding on the parties even if it has no jurisdiction to try a question of title to the land.
Lightning v Lightning Electrical Contractors Limited	English Court of Appeal	No	[1998] EWHC Admin 431	England and Wales	Cited to show that the close connection between the dispute and the forum went only to the analysis of choice of law, and not jurisdiction.
Webb v Webb	Court of Appeal	No	[1991] 1 WLR 1410	England and Wales	Cited to show that the close connection between the dispute and the forum went only to the analysis of choice of law, and not jurisdiction.
R Griggs Group Ltd v Evans	High Court	No	[2005] Ch 153	England and Wales	Cited as a case that the court respectfully disagrees with in so far as it suggests that the personal equities exception to the Moçambique rule is one which relates to choice of law instead of jurisdiction.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1987] AC 460	England and Wales	Cited for the principles of forum non conveniens.
Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 776	Singapore	Cited for applying the principles laid down in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd.
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for applying the principles laid down in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd.
PT Hutan Domas Raya v Yue Xiu Enterprises (Holdings) Limited	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 49	Singapore	Cited for applying the principles laid down in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 377	Singapore	Cited for applying the principles laid down in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd and for choice of law analysis.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] SGCA 36	Singapore	Cited for summarizing the principles set out in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd.
Murakami v Wiryadi	Supreme Court of New South Wales	No	[2006] NSWSC 1354	Australia	Cited for staying proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay	High Court	No	(1988) 165 CLR 197	Australia	Cited for the Australian approach to forum non conveniens.
Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Proprietary Limited	High Court	No	(1990) 171 CLR 538	Australia	Cited for the Australian approach to forum non conveniens.
Henry v Henry	High Court	No	(1996) 185 CLR 571	Australia	Cited for the Australian approach to forum non conveniens.
CSR Limited v Cigna Insurance Australia Limited	High Court	No	(1997) 189 CLR 345	Australia	Cited for the Australian approach to forum non conveniens.
Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang	High Court	No	(2002) 210 CLR 491	Australia	Cited for the Australian approach to forum non conveniens.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Moçambique rule
Forum non conveniens
Personal equities exception
Lex situs
Lex fori
Trust
Immovable property
Jurisdiction
Choice of law
Equitable jurisdiction

15.2 Keywords

jurisdiction
foreign property
trust
Moçambique rule
forum non conveniens
Singapore
Indonesia
Australia

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Conflict of Laws	90
Civil Procedure	70
Property Law	60
Trust Law	50

16. Subjects

Jurisdiction
Conflict of Laws
Trusts
Civil Procedure