Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG: Anti-Suit Injunction & Abuse of Court Process

Beckkett Pte Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision to grant an anti-suit injunction to Deutsche Bank AG (DB), restraining Beckkett from pursuing an action in Indonesia. The dispute arose from a loan default and the subsequent sale of pledged shares. Beckkett had initiated proceedings in both Singapore and Indonesia, leading to overlapping litigation. The Court of Appeal dismissed Beckkett's appeal, finding that Beckkett's pursuit of the Indonesian action constituted an abuse of the court's process, especially after the Singapore courts had already ruled on the matter.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

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 against anti-suit injunction granted to Deutsche Bank AG. Court dismissed appeal, citing abuse of process by Beckkett in pursuing Indonesian action.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Deutsche Bank AGRespondentCorporationAnti-suit injunction upheldWon
Beckkett Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Loong Tse ChuanAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ang Cheng HockAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ong Boon Hwee WilliamAllen & Gledhill LLP
Sylvia TeeAllen & Gledhill LLP
Lim Tao Chung KennethAllen & Gledhill LLP
Lim MingguanDrew & Napier LLC
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Pardeep Singh KhosaDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Siew Wei CherylDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Beckkett guaranteed a US$100m loan to its indirect subsidiary from Deutsche Bank AG.
  2. Beckkett pledged shares as security for the loan under share pledge agreements governed by Indonesian law.
  3. There was a default on the loan, and Deutsche Bank AG exercised its powers to sell the pledged shares.
  4. Deutsche Bank AG obtained penetapans (court orders) from the South Jakarta District Court authorizing the sale.
  5. Beckkett brought a suit in Singapore claiming for the setting aside of the sale or damages for wrongful sale.
  6. Deutsche Bank AG counterclaimed for the amount outstanding under the loan.
  7. Beckkett applied to the Jakarta High Court for the penetapans to be revoked, and the court ruled in its favor.
  8. Beckkett brought a suit in Indonesia claiming the same reliefs as those sought in the Singapore action.
  9. The Singapore Court of Appeal found Deutsche Bank AG liable for breach of duty as pledgee.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, Civil Appeal No 180 of 2010, [2010] SGCA 50
  2. Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another, , [2010] SGHC 284

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Deutsche Bank AG obtained penetapans authorizing the sale of Pledged Shares.
Deutsche Bank AG sold the Pledged Shares pursuant to penetapans.
Beckkett Pte Ltd brought Suit No 326 of 2004 in the Singapore High Court.
Beckkett applied to the Jakarta High Court for the Penetapans to be revoked.
Jakarta High Court ruled that the Penetapans were void and should be revoked.
Trial of the Singapore action began.
Indonesian Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Jakarta High Court.
Trial of the Singapore action ended.
Judgment in Singapore action was handed down.
Singapore Court of Appeal heard the Singapore appeals.
Beckkett brought Suit No 649 of 2008 in the South Jakarta District Court.
South Jakarta District Court rejected a jurisdictional challenge brought by Deutsche Bank AG.
South Jakarta District Court dismissed Beckkett’s claims in the Indonesian action on the merits.
Singapore Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the Singapore appeals.
Deutsche Bank AG applied to the High Court for an anti-suit injunction.
Jakarta High Court dismissed Beckkett’s appeal against the South Jakarta District Court’s decision in the Indonesian action.
Assistant Registrar delivered his decision ordering Beckkett to elect between proceeding with the Indonesian action and proceeding with the AD in the Singapore action.
Judge handed down the Judgment, granting an anti-suit injunction restraining Beckkett from proceeding further with the Indonesian action.
Appeal heard by the Court of Appeal.
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction
    • Outcome: The court upheld the anti-suit injunction, preventing Beckkett from continuing its Indonesian action.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abuse of court process
      • Comity
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] SGHC 284
      • [2002] 1 WLR 107
      • [1987] AC 871
  2. Abuse of Court Process
    • Outcome: The court found that Beckkett's pursuit of the Indonesian action after the Singapore courts had ruled on the matter constituted an abuse of process.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2002] 1 WLR 107
  3. Comity
    • Outcome: The court considered comity but found that it did not outweigh the need to prevent abuse of process in this case.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] AC 871
      • [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 471

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Duty as Pledgee

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and anotherHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 284SingaporeThe judgment under appeal; the Court of Appeal is reviewing the High Court's decision to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and anotherHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 189SingaporeCited as the judgment of Kan Ting Chiu J, which dismissed both Beckkett's claim and DB's counterclaim, leading to the Singapore appeals.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 452SingaporeCited as the judgment in the Singapore appeals, where the Court of Appeal dismissed Beckkett's appeal but found DB liable for breach of duty as pledgee.
Turner v Grovit and othersHouse of Lords (UK)Yes[2002] 1 WLR 107England and WalesCited for the principle that a court may issue an anti-suit injunction to restrain an individual from continuing to prosecute foreign proceedings which amount to an abuse of its process.
Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR)Court of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 166SingaporeCited as an example where the court directed the appellant to refer a point of English law to an English court for determination.
Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak and AnotherPrivy Council (UK)Yes[1987] AC 871England and WalesCited for the principle that the jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction should be exercised with circumspection due to its indirect interference with the process of a foreign court.
Royal Bank of Canada v Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BAEnglish Court of AppealYes[2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 471England and WalesCited for the principle that considerations of comity grow in importance the longer the foreign suit in question has continued.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Indonesian Civil Code, Arts 1155 and 1156Indonesia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Abuse of process
  • Penetapans
  • Pledged shares
  • Comity
  • Indonesian action
  • Singapore action

15.2 Keywords

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Singapore
  • Indonesia
  • Deutsche Bank
  • Beckkett
  • Abuse of process
  • Comity

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Anti-suit injunction95
Abuse of Process80
Share Pledge70
Jurisdiction60
Comity40
Contract Law30
Asset Recovery10
Estoppel10
Arbitration10

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions
  • Conflict of Laws
  • International Litigation