Beckkett v Deutsche Bank: Anti-Suit Injunction & Election of Remedies in Cross-Border Share Dispute

In Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, the Singapore High Court addressed whether to restrain Beckkett from pursuing a claim in Indonesia after litigating the same remedy in Singapore. Beckkett, a Singapore company, sued Deutsche Bank, a German bank, over a share dispute involving Indonesian companies. Beckkett sought a declaration that the sale of shares was invalid and their return, or alternatively, damages. The court ordered Beckkett to elect between pursuing assessment of damages in Singapore or pursuing its claim in Indonesia, with the election being final and irrevocable.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Beckkett is ordered to elect between pursuing assessment of damages in Singapore or pursuing its claim in Indonesia within 14 days. The election is final and irrevocable.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court considers anti-suit injunction in Beckkett v Deutsche Bank, involving a share dispute and concurrent Indonesian proceedings.

1.7 Decision Date

11 February 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Beckkett Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Ordered to make an election	Neutral	Davinder Singh SC, Cheryl Tan, Pardeep Singh
Deutsche Bank AG	Defendant	Corporation	Application partially allowed	Partial	Ang Cheng Hock SC, William Ong, Loong Tse Chuan, Kenneth Lim

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Yeow Wee David	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

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

4. Facts

Beckkett and its subsidiary owned shares in an Indonesian company, which in turn owned shares in another Indonesian company.
Deutsche Bank extended a Bridging Loan to Asminco, which Beckkett guaranteed.
Asminco defaulted on the Bridging Loan.
The Bank sold the pledged shares in SME and Adaro to PT Dianlia Setyamukti.
Beckkett brought a claim against the Bank and DSM seeking a declaration that the sale of shares was invalid and their return, or alternatively, damages.
Beckkett filed a suit in Indonesia while awaiting the Singapore Court of Appeal's decision.
The Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Beckkett's claim for a return of the Pledged Shares and ordered a remedy of damages only.

5. Formal Citations

Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, Suit No 326 of 2004 (Summons No 5313 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 55
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG & Anor, , [2007] SGHC 153
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG & Anor, , [2009] SGCA 18

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2001-11-21	Bank sold the pledged shares in SME and Adaro to PT Dianlia Setyamukti.
2002-02-15	Sale of pledged shares completed.
2004-01-01	Beckkett commenced its suit in Singapore.
2005-03-09	Penetapans were successfully challenged by Beckkett and subsequently set aside and revoked.
2006-02-20	High Court trial began.
2007-09-21	Judgment was rendered by the High Court.
2007-10-22	Beckkett filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
2008-04-23	Appeals were heard in Singapore and judgment was reserved.
2008-05-02	Beckkett filed a suit in the District Court of South Jakarta.
2008-10-30	The Bank filed an application known as an “Absolute Competency Exception” in the District Court of South Jakarta.
2009-01-08	The District Court of South Jakarta rejected the Bank’s Absolute Competency Exception application.
2009-04-08	The District Court issued its judgment and dismissed Beckkett’s suit in its entirety.
2009-04-13	Beckkett filed an appeal against that decision.
2009-04-27	The Singapore Court of Appeal rendered its judgment.
2009-05-15	The Bank’s Indonesian counsel received a notification from the District Court of South Jakarta informing the Bank of the First Indonesian Appeal.
2009-05-25	Beckkett filed a Summons for Directions for the assessment of damages in the Singapore High Court.
2009-07-28	The Bank’s Indonesian counsel received another notification from the District Court of Central Jakarta, informing him of the First Indonesian Appeal.
2009-08-24	The Bank’s solicitors in Singapore wrote to Beckkett’s solicitors to ask Beckkett to withdraw the First Indonesian Appeal.
2009-08-28	Beckkett’s solicitors replied asking for a copy of the Notice of Appeal referred to in the letter from the Bank’s solicitors.
2009-09-04	The Bank's solicitors acceded to Beckkett's request for a copy of the Notice of Appeal.
2009-09-17	Beckkett’s solicitors replied to say that Beckkett 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 informing him that the High Court had received the documents in Beckkett’s First Indonesian Appeal from the District Court of South Jakarta.
2009-10-07	Counsel for the Bank first intimated to the Court that its client wished to take out an anti-suit injunction.
2009-10-09	The present application was filed.
2009-11-18	The application was heard.
2010-01-12	The outcome of the High Court of Jakarta had been released; Beckkett’s appeal was dismissed.
2010-02-12	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court declined to grant an anti-suit injunction but ordered the plaintiff to elect between pursuing remedies in Singapore or Indonesia.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Vexatious and oppressive conduct
  - Natural forum
  - International comity
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] SGCA 18
  - [1987] AC 871
  - [2009] SGCA 32
Election of Remedies
- Outcome: The court ordered the plaintiff to make a final and irrevocable election between pursuing remedies in Singapore or Indonesia.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Double recovery
  - Alternative remedies
  - Finality of litigation
- Related Cases:
  - [1941] AC 1
  - [1999] 4 SLR 21
  - [2009] SGHC 232
Duplicity of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court found that the proceedings in Indonesia and Singapore were duplicitous.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Same parties
  - Same issues
  - Same underlying cause of action
- Related Cases:
  - [1998] 3 SLR 272
  - [2009] 1 SLR 1000

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the sale of shares was invalid
Order to set aside the sale
Restoration of equity of redemption
Return of pledged shares
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of mortgagee's duties
Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
International Litigation
Cross-Border Disputes

11. Industries

Banking
Finance
Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG & Anor	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 153	Singapore	Summarizes the facts of the dispute between the parties after a 50-day trial.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG & Anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] SGCA 18	Singapore	Summarizes the salient facts of the dispute and makes orders regarding the assessment of damages.
Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Coral Oil Co Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1999] 2 Lloyds Rep 606	N/A	Cited for the principle that a court not originally the natural forum can become the natural forum as a result of the progress of litigation.
Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak	Privy Council	Yes	[1987] AC 871	N/A	Relied on for the test to show that the continuation of the Indonesian proceedings was both vexatious and oppressive.
Transtech Electronics Pte Ltd v Choe Jerry & Ors	N/A	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR 272	Singapore	Cited for the principle that multiplicity of proceedings does not ipso facto prevent one of those actions from continuing.
Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd & Anor v Toh Chun Toh Gordon & Ors	N/A	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR 1000	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is an essential ingredient of a finding that there was a duplicity of actions that the plaintiff must have sued the same defendant in two jurisdictions in substantially the same causes of action.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham & Ors v Trane US Inc & Ors	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] SGCA 32	Singapore	Relied on for the principles considered by the Court of Appeal regarding anti-suit injunctions.
VH v VI & Anor	High Court	Yes	VH v VI & Anor [2007] SGHC 221	Singapore	Cited for the principle that inexplicable and inordinate delay on the Bank’s part was sufficient for the Court to refuse the Bank relief in the present application.
McHenry v Lewis	N/A	Yes	[1882] 22 Ch. D 397	N/A	Cited for the principle that there was no presumption in law that a multiplicity of proceedings in different jurisdictions was vexatious.
Peruvian Guano Company v Bockwoldt	N/A	Yes	[1883] Ch. D 225	N/A	Cited for the principle that there was no presumption in law that a multiplicity of proceedings in different jurisdictions was vexatious.
Royal Bank of Canada v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA	N/A	Yes	[2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 471	N/A	Cited as authorities for the proposition that anti-suit injunctions ought to be rarely given in the wider context of comity amongst nations.
Ross v Ross	Probate Division of the High Court	Yes	[1950] P 160	England	Discusses the doctrine of election in the context of alternative remedies.
Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd & Anor	N/A	Yes	[2009] SGHC 232	Singapore	Discusses the rationale for the principles of election between alternative remedies to prevent double recovery.
United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd	Privy Council	Yes	[1941] AC 1	N/A	Discusses the point at which a plaintiff must elect which remedy he will have.
Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 457	Singapore	Lists the elements in determining whether an anti-suit injunction ought to be granted.
South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij “De Zeven Provincien” NV	N/A	Yes	[1987] AC 24	N/A	States that where there is an agreement, the court may not feel diffident about granting an anti-suit injunction as it would only be enforcing a contractual promise and the question of international comity is not as relevant.
The Angelic Grace	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87	N/A	States that where there is an agreement, the court may not feel diffident about granting an anti-suit injunction as it would only be enforcing a contractual promise and the question of international comity is not as relevant.
WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka	N/A	Yes	[2002] 3 SLR 603	Singapore	States that where there is an agreement, the court may not feel diffident about granting an anti-suit injunction as it would only be enforcing a contractual promise and the question of international comity is not as relevant.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd & Ors (No 3)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] EWCA Civ 625	England	Highlights the importance of the principle of finality in legal proceedings and the need for the Court to protect its jurisdiction, processes and judgments by issuing injunctions in appropriate cases.
Yusen Air & Sea Service (S) Pte Ltd v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 21	Singapore	Considers the issue of when the Court may order that a party be put to an election.
Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd & Anor v Toh Chun Toh Gordon & Ors	N/A	Yes	[2008] SGHC 193	Singapore	Discusses the case of Australian Commercial Research and Development Ltd v ANZ McCaughan Merchant Bank Ltd, which was cited with approval by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Yusen Air.
Australian Commercial Research and Development Ltd v ANZ McCaughan Merchant Bank Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1989] 3 All ER 65	N/A	Discussed in Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd & Anor v Toh Chun Toh Gordon & Ors and cited with approval by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Yusen Air.
The Delta	N/A	Yes	The Delta (1876) 1 PD 393	N/A	Discusses lis alibi pendens and putting a party to an election.
Morrison Rose & Partners v Hillman	N/A	Yes	[1961] 2 QB 266	N/A	Discusses lis alibi pendens and putting a party to an election.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Indonesian Commercial Code Articles 1155 and 1156	Indonesia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anti-suit injunction
Election of remedies
Duplicity of proceedings
Vexatious and oppressive conduct
Natural forum
International comity
Pledged shares
Assessment of damages
Final and irrevocable election
Penetapans

15.2 Keywords

Anti-suit injunction
Election of remedies
Share dispute
Singapore High Court
Indonesian proceedings
Cross-border litigation

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Banking Law
International Law
Conflict of Laws

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Conflict of Laws
Injunctions
Contract Law
Commercial Law