Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v APM Infotech Pte Ltd: Enforcement of Foreign Judgments & Inherent Jurisdiction
In Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v APM Infotech Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of whether the court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to enter judgment on the merits of a case, rather than in default of appearance, to ensure enforceability in a foreign jurisdiction. Singapore Telecommunications Ltd sued APM Infotech Pte Ltd for US$491,682.46 for unpaid international calling services. The court granted the plaintiff's application and entered judgment for the plaintiff after reviewing the evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Telecommunications Ltd sues APM Infotech for unpaid international calling services. The court considers its inherent jurisdiction to enter judgment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Telecommunications Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for the Plaintiff | Won | |
| APM Infotech Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment against the Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Eunice Chua | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohammed Reza | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Alina Chia | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff provided international calling services to the defendant under two agreements.
- The defendant failed to pay for the services rendered.
- The plaintiff terminated the agreements due to non-payment.
- The agreements stipulated that Singapore law would govern any disputes.
- The agreements stipulated that the defendant submitted to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.
- The plaintiff served the writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendant by email.
- The defendant failed to enter an appearance.
5. Formal Citations
- Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v APM Infotech Pte Ltd, Suit No 383 of 2010 (Summons No 2049 of 2011), [2011] SGHC 147
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Agreements entered into | |
| Plaintiff filed writ of summons | |
| Plaintiff applied for leave to serve writ out of jurisdiction | |
| Order granted to serve writ out of jurisdiction | |
| Unsuccessful attempt to serve writ | |
| Writ served by email | |
| Plaintiff filed memorandum of service | |
| Plaintiff filed Ex Parte Summons No 2049 of 2011 | |
| Plaintiff obtained certificate of non-appearance | |
| Plaintiff’s note of costs filed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
- Outcome: The court held that it had the inherent jurisdiction to enter judgment after considering the merits of the case, even though the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in default of appearance.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice
- Inherent jurisdiction vs. Rules of Court
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426
- Enforceability of Foreign Judgments
- Outcome: The court considered the enforceability of the judgment in India, where the defendant's assets were located, and the requirements under Indian law for recognizing foreign judgments.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Recognition of foreign judgments in India
- Judgment on the merits
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract for failing to pay for international calling services provided by the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to pay for services rendered
- Termination of contract
- Interest on outstanding amount
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Interest
- Costs on an indemnity basis
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Telecommunications
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berliner Bank AG v Karageorgis and another | English Court | Yes | [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426 | England | Cited as an instance where the English Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to try a case on its merits although judgment in default of appearance could have been entered. |
| Habib Bank Ltd v Central Bank of Sudan (formerly known as Bank of Sudan) | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 WLR 470 | N/A | Cited as a case that applied the approach in Berliner Bank. |
| Trafigura Pte Ltd, Trafigura Beheer BV v Emirates General Petroleum Corporation | N/A | Yes | [2010] EWHC 87 (Comm) | N/A | Cited as a case that applied the approach in Berliner Bank. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited to explain that O 92 r 4 was not intended to allow the courts carte blanche to devise any procedural remedy they think fit. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821 | Singapore | Cited to explain the nature of the court’s inherent jurisdiction. |
| Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353 | Singapore | Cited to explain that the court’s inherent jurisdiction should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. |
| Panwell Investments Pte Ltd v Lau Ee Theow | N/A | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 73 | Singapore | Cited to explain that the rule allowing a plaintiff to apply for judgment in default of defence was merely a permissive rule. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited regarding the defendant's recourse if the judgment was improperly obtained. |
| Govidan Asari Kesavan Asari v Sankaran Asari Balakrishanan Asari | Kerala High Court | Yes | AIR 1958 Ker 203 | India | Cited regarding adducing evidence in respect of a claim, so that the foreign court may give a decision on the merits of the case after due consideration of the evidence instead of dispensing with such consideration and giving a judgment merely on account of the defendant’s default of appearance. |
| International Woollen Mills v Standard Wool (UK) Ltd | Supreme Court of India | Yes | [2001] 2 LRI 765 | India | Cited regarding adducing evidence in respect of a claim, so that the foreign court may give a decision on the merits of the case after due consideration of the evidence instead of dispensing with such consideration and giving a judgment merely on account of the defendant’s default of appearance. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Indian Civil Procedure Code 1908, Section 44A | India |
| Indian Civil Procedure Code 1908, Section 13 | India |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed), Order 92 Rule 4 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), Order 13 Rule 1 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed), Section 80(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Enforcement of foreign judgments
- Judgment in default of appearance
- Judgment on the merits
- International calling services
- Service Request-Cum-Agreement for Corporate Voice Delivery (CVD) Service
- Service Request-Cum-Agreement for SingTel International Private Leased Circuit (IPLC) Service
- General Terms and Conditions of Service
15.2 Keywords
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Foreign judgment
- Default judgment
- Breach of contract
- Singapore
- India
- Telecommunications
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Enforcement of Foreign Judgments | 80 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 65 |
| Jurisdiction | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 50 |
| International Calling Services | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- International Law