Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG: Anti-Suit Injunction & Vexatious Foreign Proceedings

In Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal regarding an anti-suit injunction. Beckkett, having lost its claim for the return of pledged shares in Singapore courts, pursued a parallel action in Indonesia. The High Court, reversing the Assistant Registrar's decision, granted the anti-suit injunction, finding Beckkett's conduct vexatious and oppressive, undermining the Singapore court's jurisdiction and the principle of finality. The court restrained Beckkett from continuing proceedings in Indonesia related to the sale of pledged shares.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court restrains Beckkett from pursuing Indonesian action against Deutsche Bank, deeming it vexatious after Singapore judgment on pledged shares.

1.7 Decision Date

23 September 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Deutsche Bank AG	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Loong Tse Chuan of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill LLP William Ong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Kenneth Lim of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Beckkett Pte Ltd	Plaintiff, Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC Pradeep Singh of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Loong Tse Chuan	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Ang Cheng Hock	Allen & Gledhill LLP
William Ong	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Kenneth Lim	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Davinder Singh	Drew & Napier LLC
Pradeep Singh	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Beckkett sued Deutsche Bank in Singapore over the sale of pledged shares.
Beckkett also filed a suit in Indonesia seeking the return of the same shares.
The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Beckkett's claim for the return of shares.
Beckkett continued the Indonesian action despite the Singapore judgment.
Deutsche Bank sought an anti-suit injunction in Singapore to restrain Beckkett's Indonesian action.
The Assistant Registrar initially ordered Beckkett to elect between the Singapore and Indonesian proceedings.
Deutsche Bank appealed, seeking a full anti-suit injunction.

5. Formal Citations

Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another, Suit No 326 of 2004 (Registrar's Appeal No 99 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 284

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1997-01-01	Deutsche Bank extended a loan to Asminco.
2001-11-21	Deutsche Bank's sale in Indonesia of the Pledged Shares.
2002-02-15	Sale of the Pledged Shares to PT Dianlia Setyamukti completed.
2004-04-01	Beckkett started action against Deutsche Bank.
2005-02-01	DSM joined as the second defendant.
2005-03-09	Penetapans were set aside and revoked.
2007-09-21	Judgment was delivered in the High Court.
2008-04-23	Appeals were heard.
2008-05-02	Beckkett filed the Indonesian action.
2008-10-30	The Bank filed an application in the District Court.
2009-01-08	Application rejected.
2009-04-08	The District Court dismissed the suit.
2009-04-13	Beckkett filed an appeal against that decision (the “First Indonesian Appeal”).
2009-04-27	The Court of Appeal delivered judgment.
2009-05-25	Beckkett filed a summons for directions for the assessment of damages in the Singapore High Court.
2009-08-24	The Bank’s solicitors in Singapore wrote to Beckkett’s solicitors to ask Beckkett to withdraw the First Indonesian Appeal.
2009-09-17	Beckkett stated that it did not intend to withdraw the First Indonesian Appeal.
2009-09-28	The Bank’s Indonesian counsel received a notice from the High Court of Jakarta.
2009-10-09	The Bank filed its application for an anti-suit injunction in Singapore.
2009-11-18	Hearing of the application took place.
2009-12-04	The final set of submissions was put in by Beckkett.
2010-01-12	The JHC released its decision on the First Indonesian Appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful.
2010-01-26	Beckkett lodged an appeal (the “Second Indonesian Appeal”) against this decision to the Supreme Court of Indonesia.
2010-02-12	The AR ordered Beckkett to elect between the legal proceedings in Singapore and Indonesia.
2010-02-26	Beckkett elected to pursue its claims and remedies in Indonesia.
2010-03-04	The Bank lodged the present appeal.
2010-09-24	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court granted the anti-suit injunction, restraining Beckkett from pursuing the Indonesian action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Vexatious and Oppressive Conduct
  - Duplication of Proceedings
  - Protection of Jurisdiction
Vexatious and Oppressive Conduct
- Outcome: The court found that Beckkett's conduct in maintaining suits in both Indonesia and Singapore after the Singapore Court of Appeal rendered its judgment was vexatious and oppressive.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Concurrent Proceedings
  - Abuse of Process
Duplication of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court found that the legal proceedings in Singapore and Indonesia were duplicative.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Same Reliefs Sought
  - Same Parties
  - Same Underlying Bases

8. Remedies Sought

Anti-Suit Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Duty as Pledgee

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
International Litigation
Banking Litigation

11. Industries

Banking
Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 189	Singapore	Sets out the facts giving rise to the original law suit.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 452	Singapore	Sets out the facts giving rise to the original law suit and relevant findings of the Court of Appeal.
Unknown	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 55	Singapore	Assistant Registrar's judgment giving reasons for findings.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428	Singapore	Cited for the framework in relation to the principles to be applied when considering whether to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Australian Commercial Research and Development Ltd v ANZ McCaughan Merchant Bank Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1989] 3 All ER 65	England	Cited for the principle that if duplicate proceedings are conducted concurrently in two different courts or two different jurisdictions by a plaintiff, that plaintiff bears the burden of justifying the continuance of the concurrent proceedings.
Yusen Air & Sea Service (S) Pte Ltd v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 955	Singapore	Cited for observations of the Court of Appeal regarding compelling a plaintiff to make an election as to which set of proceedings he wishes to pursue.
Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd and another v Toh Chun Toh Gordon and others	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000	Singapore	Endorsed the legal principles contained in Halsbury’s Laws of England as to the options available to the court when there are concurrent and vexatious proceedings in two different jurisdictions.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors (UK) Ltd & Ors (No 3)	Unknown	Yes	Masri v Consolidated Contractors (UK) Ltd & Ors (No 3)	England	Cited for the principle that the English court will restrain relitigation abroad of a claim which has already been the subject of an English judgment.
Bank of Tokyo Ltd v Karoon (Note)	Unknown	Yes	[1987] AC 45	England	Referred to the public interest in the finality of litigation.
Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale Appellants v Lee Kui JAK and Another Respondents	Privy Council	Yes	[1987] AC 871	England	Cited for the principle that the court in deciding whether to grant an anti-suit injunction must always have regard to what the ends of justice require.
Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA	Unknown	Yes	[2004] 2 All ER (Comm) 847	England	Cited for the principle that considerations of comity grow in importance the longer the foreign suit continues and the more the parties and the judge have engaged in its conduct and management.
Q & M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh Kiat	High Court	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 494	Singapore	Cited for the importance of international comity and the domestic legal system.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anti-Suit Injunction
Pledged Shares
Vexatious Proceedings
Duplication of Proceedings
Election
Clean Hands
Jurisdiction
Comity
Finality of Litigation

15.2 Keywords

Anti-suit injunction
Singapore
Indonesian action
Vexatious
Deutsche Bank
Beckkett
Pledged shares
Concurrent proceedings

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Injunctions	90
Jurisdiction	80
Commercial Disputes	70
Contract Law	60
Civil Procedure	50
Conflict of Laws	40
Arbitration	30
Property Law	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Conflict of Laws
Injunctions
Banking
Commercial Law