Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher Teck: Forum Non Conveniens & Negligence in Cross-Border Motor Accident

In Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher Teck, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Goh Suan Hee against the decision to reverse the District Judge's order to stay Teo Cher Teck's negligence action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The case arose from a motor accident in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that Goh Suan Hee had not shown that Malaysia was a clearly more appropriate forum, considering the location of witnesses and the similarity of negligence laws. The court ordered Goh Suan Hee to pay costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal on forum non conveniens in a negligence claim arising from a motor accident in Malaysia. The court dismissed the appeal, finding Singapore an appropriate forum.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Goh Suan HeeAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostChew Mei Lin Lynette, Sue-Anne Lim
Teo Cher TeckRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualJudgment upheldWonTiwary Anuradha

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chew Mei Lin LynetteHarry Elias Partnership
Sue-Anne LimHarry Elias Partnership
Tiwary AnuradhaVision Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant, a Malaysian national, was involved in a motor accident with the respondent, a Singaporean national.
  2. The accident occurred on 21 January 2007 in Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
  3. The appellant's car collided into the back of the respondent's car.
  4. The appellant was fined RM300 by the Malaysian traffic police.
  5. The respondent brought a claim against the appellant in the District Court in Singapore for damages for personal injury.
  6. The appellant applied for a stay of the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.
  7. The respondent has four witnesses based in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher Teck, CA 10/2009, [2009] SGCA 52

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Motor accident occurred in Johor Bahru, Malaysia
DC Suit 1070 filed in District Court in Singapore
Appeal dismissed
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that Malaysia was not a clearly more appropriate forum and allowed the action to proceed in Singapore.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 1 SLR 749
      • [2007] 4 SLR 565
      • [1987] AC 460
      • [2007] 1 SLR 377
      • [2006] 2 SLR 381
      • [1984] 12 Lloyd’s Rep 91
      • [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 217
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court noted that the law of negligence in Malaysia and Singapore is essentially the same.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] SGHC 191
  3. Choice of Law
    • Outcome: The court determined that the lex loci delicti (Malaysian law) would apply, but noted the similarity of negligence laws in both jurisdictions.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1971] AC 356
  4. Quantification of Damages
    • Outcome: The court discussed the open question of whether the lex loci delicti should apply to determine the quantum of damages.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1953] 2 QB 329
      • [2007] 2 AC 1
      • [2005] 1 WLR 1539
      • [2000] 203 CLR 503
      • [1993] 176 CLR 433
      • [2002] 210 CLR 491

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for personal injury

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Cross-Border Litigation
  • Personal Injury
  • Forum Non Conveniens

11. Industries

  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Teo Cher Teck v Goh Suan HeeHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR 749SingaporeThe Judge reversed the DJ’s decision and held that the appellant had failed to show that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum.
Murakami Takako (executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, deceased) v Wiryadi Louise MariaCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR 565SingaporeCited for the principle that the relevant test for a suitable jurisdiction is which forum meets the ends of justice, having regard to the interests of the parties.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460United KingdomCited for the principles of forum non conveniens, specifically the two-stage test for determining whether to stay an action.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von UexkullCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR 377SingaporeCited for summarizing the Spiliada principles and their application in Singapore law.
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek LianHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR 381SingaporeCited for the principle that a court must take into account an entire multitude of factors in balancing the competing interests when determining forum non conveniens.
Cordoba Shipping Co Ltd v National State Bank, Elizabeth, New Jersey (The Albaforth)Court not specifiedYes[1984] 12 Lloyd’s Rep 91United KingdomCited for the principle that the place where a tort occurred is prima facie the natural forum for determining the claim.
The Xin Yang and An Kang JiangCourt not specifiedYes[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 217United KingdomCited for the principle that the place where a tort occurred is only one factor to be considered in the Spiliada test and is not conclusive.
Chaplin v BoysHouse of LordsYes[1971] AC 356United KingdomCited and distinguished regarding the application of lex loci delicti in choice of law analysis, noting the unique facts of Chaplin where both parties were British subjects temporarily serving in Malta.
Ismail bin Sukardi v Kamal bin IkhwanHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 191SingaporeCited for the principle that the law relating to negligence on the roads in Malaysia and Singapore is essentially the same.
J D’Almeida Araujo LDA v Sir Frederick Becker & Co LdCourt not specifiedYes[1953] 2 QB 329United KingdomCited for the traditional common law position that the quantification of damages is one of procedure and is thus governed by the lex fori.
Harding v WealandsHouse of LordsYes[2007] 2 AC 1United KingdomCited for affirming the general principle that the quantification of damages was a matter of procedure which was governed by the lex fori.
Harding v WealandsCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 WLR 1539United KingdomCited as reversed on appeal regarding the characterization of New South Wales statutory provisions on damages.
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v RogersonHigh Court of AustraliaYes[2000] 203 CLR 503AustraliaCited for reconsidering the rule that a statutory rule laying down a limit on damages was procedural in nature and deciding that the New South Wales provision, which placed a cap on damages, was a substantive rule.
Stevens v HeadHigh Court of AustraliaYes[1993] 176 CLR 433AustraliaCited as the position that was departed from in John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson regarding statutory limits on damages.
Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v ZhangHigh Court of AustraliaYes[2002] 210 CLR 491AustraliaCited for reserving the question as to whether, in international torts cases, the question of the kinds and quantification of damages should also be governed by the lex loci delicti.
The Rainbow JoyCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR 719SingaporeCited for the principle that the issue of whether there is a defence to the claim is not a relevant consideration when weighing the balance of convenience under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum non conveniens
  • Lex loci delicti
  • Juridical advantage
  • Quantification of damages
  • Choice of law
  • Motor accident
  • Negligence
  • Spiliada principles

15.2 Keywords

  • forum non conveniens
  • negligence
  • motor accident
  • Singapore
  • Malaysia
  • conflict of laws
  • damages

16. Subjects

  • Conflict of Laws
  • Tort
  • Civil Procedure
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents

17. Areas of Law

  • Conflict of Laws
  • Tort Law
  • Civil Procedure