Citibank NA v Robert: Forum Non Conveniens & Guaranty Enforcement
Citibank NA, a US bank, sued Robert, an Indonesian citizen, in the Singapore High Court based on an Irrevocable Guaranty and Indemnity. Robert applied to stay the suit, arguing Singapore was not the appropriate forum. The High Court dismissed Robert's appeal, finding that Robert had granted Citibank the option to bring suit in any court with jurisdiction over his assets, which included Singapore. The court found that Robert had not shown strong cause to grant a stay.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Citibank NA sues Robert on a guaranty. The court dismisses Robert's appeal to stay the suit, finding Singapore an appropriate forum.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citibank NA | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Gerald Kuppusamy, Yap Cui Xian, Michelle Lee |
| Robert | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Gurbani Prem Kumar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gerald Kuppusamy | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Yap Cui Xian | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Michelle Lee | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Gurbani Prem Kumar | Gurbani & Co |
4. Facts
- Citibank sued Robert based on an Irrevocable Guaranty and Indemnity.
- The Guaranty was governed by New York law.
- Robert is the President Director of PT Permata Hijau Sawit (PHS).
- Citibank had a long course of dealing with PHS dating back to 2001.
- PHS incurred a debt to Citibank of US$ 23,146,749.41.
- PHS defaulted on this debt.
- Robert applied to stay the suit on the ground that Singapore was not the convenient or appropriate forum.
5. Formal Citations
- Citibank NA v Robert, Suit No 175 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 243 of 2010), [2011] SGHC 21
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Irrevocable Guaranty and Indemnity signed | |
| ISDA Agreement entered into | |
| Plaintiff sent a letter of offer to PHS | |
| Confirmation Agreement dated | |
| Plaintiff demanded that the defendant pay the sum of US$5,250,000 | |
| Plaintiff demanded that the defendant pay the sum of US$5,250,000 | |
| PHS commenced an action in the District Court of South Jakarta, Indonesia | |
| District Court handed down the judgment that the Confirmation Agreement and the Callable Forward transactions were null and void on the ground of illegality | |
| Plaintiff commenced the Suit against the defendant | |
| Defendant took out the Summons to stay the Suit | |
| Defendant’s counsel made an application before me for the filing of affidavits of expert opinions | |
| Defendant’s counsel wrote in to request a vacation of the hearing date | |
| Hearing date had to be vacated | |
| Parties appeared before me for the substantive hearing | |
| South Jakarta District Court issued a decision declaring the guaranty null and void | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant had not shown strong cause to grant a stay, and the plaintiff was entitled to bring suit in Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Enforcement of jurisdiction clause
- Appropriateness of forum
- Enforceability of Guaranty
- Outcome: The court did not make a final determination on the enforceability of the guaranty, but found that there was a genuine dispute as to its effect.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Effect of Indonesian court decision on the guaranty
- Interpretation of the guaranty agreement
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the claim is res judicata.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guaranty
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543 | Singapore | Cited for the general principles governing forum non conveniens. |
| Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 460 | United Kingdom | Cited as the locus classicus on the question of when a stay would be granted on the basis of forum non conveniens. |
| Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 345 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Spiliada principles have been adopted. |
| Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 851 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Spiliada principles have been adopted. |
| PT Hutan Domas Raya v Yue Xiu Enterprises (Holdings) Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 104 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Spiliada principles have been adopted. |
| Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Spiliada principles have been adopted. |
| Baiduri Bank Bhd v Dong Sui Hung and Another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 271 | Singapore | Cited for the test to apply where a jurisdiction clause exists that limits jurisdiction to a few countries. |
| Bambang Sutrisno v Bali International Finance Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 632 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has discretion whether or not to grant a stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens even when parties have agreed to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. |
| The “Eastern Trust” | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 511 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where parties have agreed to litigate exclusively in a forum other than Singapore, a stay would ordinarily be granted unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. |
| Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd v UCO Bank and another appeal | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 6 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there is an agreement between parties as to choice of jurisdiction, the court would strongly lean in favour of giving effect to the contractual bargain unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise. |
| Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd v Chatsworth Timber Corp Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977-1978] SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether there was strong cause to grant a stay. |
| The “Hyundai Fortune” | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 548 | Singapore | Cited for adding other matters of convenience to the basket of factors to be considered before deciding whether the factors added up to strong cause warranting the stay. |
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
- Irrevocable Guaranty and Indemnity
- Forum Non Conveniens
- ISDA Master Agreement
- Callable Forward transactions
- Jurisdiction Clause
- Strong Cause
- Res Judicata
15.2 Keywords
- guaranty
- forum non conveniens
- Singapore
- contract
- banking
16. Subjects
- Banking
- Contract
- Civil Procedure
- Forum Non Conveniens
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Contract Law
- Banking Law
- Guaranty Law