Sun Jin Engineering v Hwang Jae Woo: Forum Non Conveniens & Stay of Proceedings

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd against Hwang Jae Woo regarding a stay of proceedings in Singapore in favor of proceedings in the Maldives. Sun Jin Engineering claimed Hwang Jae Woo breached his duty, causing them loss through unauthorized payments. The court considered whether Hwang Jae Woo was precluded from applying for a stay due to taking steps in the Singapore action and late filing, and whether a stay should be granted based on forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision to stay the Singapore action, finding the Maldives to be the more appropriate forum.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs; the decision to order a stay of the Singapore Action on the ground of forum non conveniens is affirmed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses stay of proceedings in favor of Maldives, focusing on forum non conveniens and procedural compliance.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sun Jin Engineering Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
A Rajandran of A Rajandran
Hwang Jae WooRespondentIndividualStay of Proceedings GrantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
A RajandranA Rajandran
Haresh KamdarKhattarWong

4. Facts

  1. Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd (Appellant) sued Hwang Jae Woo (Respondent) for breach of duty.
  2. The Respondent allegedly made unauthorized payments to third parties, causing the Appellant loss.
  3. The Respondent was working for Sun Jin Engineering (M) Sdn Bhd (SJM) in the Maldives.
  4. The Respondent applied for a stay of the Singapore Action in favor of proceedings in the Maldives.
  5. The Respondent filed the Stay Application after taking steps in the Singapore Action and after the deadline.
  6. The Civil Court of the Maldives found that the Respondent was an employee of SJM in a separate suit.
  7. Key witnesses related to the payments were located in the Maldives and unwilling to testify in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo, Civil Appeal No 73 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 4

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent started working in the Maldives
Directors of SJM passed a resolution appointing the Respondent as its country representative in the Maldives
Original deadline for Respondent to file defence
Extended deadline for Respondent to file defence
Respondent re-filed his defence
Respondent applied for a stay of the Singapore Action
Appellant's Case filed
Respondent's Case filed
Judgment reserved
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that the Maldives was the more appropriate forum for the trial of the dispute.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Availability of witnesses
      • Governing law of the dispute
  2. Stay of Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court granted the respondent an extension of time to file the stay application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Extension of time to file stay application
      • Taking steps in proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Engineering

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae WooHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 684SingaporeThe decision from which this appeal arose.
Chan Chin Cheung v Chan Fatt Cheung and othersCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 1192SingaporeApplied in holding that the Respondent, despite having taken steps in the Singapore Action and despite having made the Stay Application late, was not precluded from applying to stay the Singapore Action since there had not been any prejudice to the Appellant which could not be compensated by costs.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460United KingdomEstablished the test for determining whether a stay of proceedings should be granted on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Yeoh Poh San and another v Won Siok WanHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 233SingaporeCited for the principle that a defendant is required to apply for a stay of proceedings before taking any step other than filing an appearance because such other step might be construed as a submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
Republic of the Philippines v Maler Foundation and othersHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 857SingaporeCited for the interpretation and explanation of the expression “step in the proceedings” in s 4(3)(b) of the State Immunity Act.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 425SingaporeAdvocated the need to strike a balance between instilling procedural discipline in civil litigation and permitting parties to present the substantive merits of their respective cases to the court notwithstanding some procedural irregularities.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeAdvocated the need to strike a balance between instilling procedural discipline in civil litigation and permitting parties to present the substantive merits of their respective cases to the court notwithstanding some procedural irregularities.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appealHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 537SingaporeAdvocated the need to strike a balance between instilling procedural discipline in civil litigation and permitting parties to present the substantive merits of their respective cases to the court notwithstanding some procedural irregularities.
The “Tokai Maru”Court of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 646SingaporeEmployed the test of prejudice to address the tension between ensuring compliance with procedural requirements and ensuring that substantive justice is done.
Erskine Communications Ltd and Another v Worthington and OthersUnknownYes[1991] TLR 330EnglandIllustrates a relatively liberal judicial pronouncement regarding overstepping time limits.
Thamboo Ratnam v Thamboo Cumarasamy and Cumarasamy Ariamany d/o KumarasaPrivy CouncilYes[1965] 1 WLR 8UnknownIllustrates a stricter approach taken by courts regarding compliance with rules of court.
Costellow v Somerset County CouncilUnknownYes[1993] 1 WLR 256EnglandStressed the importance of the question of prejudice and held that it was the “overall assessment of what justice require[d]” which really mattered.
Finnegan v Parkside Health AuthorityEnglish Court of AppealYes[1998] 1 WLR 411EnglandTook the view that the question of prejudice was of importance and bearing in mind the overriding principle that justice had to be done.
Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Sandoes and OthersEnglish Court of AppealYes[1996] TLR 751EnglandHeld that once a party was in default in complying with a prescribed timeline, it was for that party to satisfy the court that despite its default, the court’s discretion to extend time should nevertheless be exercised in its favour.
Ong Cheng Aik [v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation)Court of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 561SingaporeIn respect of such an application for extension of time [to file or serve a notice of appeal out of time], the court takes a rather strict view of things and sufficient grounds must be shown before the court will exercise its discretion.
Hau Khee Wee and another v Chua Kian Tong and anotherUnknownYes[1985–1986] SLR(R) 1075SingaporeLists the factors which our courts have regard to in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted.
Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen EdwinUnknownYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 260SingaporeLists the factors which our courts have regard to in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted.
AD v AEUnknownYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 505SingaporeLists the factors which our courts have regard to in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted.
Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung JohnUnknownYes[2010] 1 SLR 1026SingaporeLists the factors which our courts have regard to in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted.
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte LtdUnknownYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 121SingaporeApplied the factors used to determine whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted in a case that did not concern such an application.
Cropper v SmithUnknownYes[1884] 26 Ch D 700EnglandThe object of Courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights.
PT Hutan Domas Raya v Yue Xiu Enterprises (Holdings) Ltd and anotherUnknownYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 104SingaporeThe Spiliada test has become the established test in Singapore.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullUnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeThe Spiliada test has become the established test in Singapore.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort LtdUnknownYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543SingaporeThe Spiliada test has become the established test in Singapore.
Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher TeckUnknownYes[2010] 1 SLR 367SingaporeThe Spiliada test has become the established test in Singapore.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2010] SGCA 41SingaporeThe Spiliada test has become the established test in Singapore.
Shiloh Spinners Ltd v HardingHouse of LordsYes[1973] AC 691United KingdomSets out the proposition of law that an appellate court should only review a judge’s exercise of discretion.
QBE Insurance Ltd v Sim Lim Finance LtdUnknownYes[1987] SLR(R) 23SingaporeSets out the proposition of law that an appellate court should only review a judge’s exercise of discretion.
Mineral Enterprises Ltd v JIO Minerals FZC and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 109SingaporeIn deciding a stay application, the court cannot simply weigh the connecting factors without reference to the likely issues.
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek LianUnknownYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 381SingaporeThe fact that an important witness is only available and compellable in a particular jurisdiction is a significant consideration which can tilt the balance in favour of that jurisdiction.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court
Order 12 Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 12 Rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court
Order 3 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court
Order 2 Rule 1(2) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore
State Immunity Act (Cap 313, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Extension of Time
  • Breach of Duty
  • Unauthorized Payments
  • Maldives
  • Singapore Action

15.2 Keywords

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Singapore
  • Maldives
  • Civil Litigation
  • Breach of Duty

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Forum conveniens90
Jurisdiction80
Breach of Contract70
Civil Procedure60
Contract Law50
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means40
Inducement of Breach of Contract30
Asset Recovery20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Litigation
  • Jurisdiction
  • Procedural Law