Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters: Forum Non Conveniens & Tort of Misrepresentation

In Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters, the Singapore High Court addressed the issue of forum non conveniens in a case involving claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy brought by Plaintiff Nikolay Vorobiev against Defendants John Frederick Peters Lush, Francois Ostinelli, and Alexander Novoselov. The plaintiff claimed misrepresentation regarding the purchase of shares in Petroval Singapore and loans made to the company. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, finding Switzerland to be the more appropriate forum, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court considers whether Singapore or Switzerland is the more appropriate forum for a case involving fraudulent misrepresentation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Vorobiev NikolayPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lush John Frederick PetersDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Francois OstinelliDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Alexander NovoselovDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Mei YenDrew & Napier LLC
Manoj SandrasegaraDrew & Napier LLC
Sheryl WeiDrew & Napier LLC
Noraisah RuslanDrew & Napier LLC
Koh Swee YenWong Partnership
Sim Hui ShanWong Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Vorobiev sued Lush, Ostinelli, and Novoselov for fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy.
  2. The lawsuit concerns the purchase of shares in Petroval Singapore and loans made to the company.
  3. Vorobiev claimed the defendants misrepresented their authority to sell the shares.
  4. The offer to buy shares was made to Vorobiev in Geneva.
  5. Vorobiev paid US$3,810,000 for a 20% shareholding in Stainby Overseas Ltd.
  6. Vorobiev made two loans to Petroval Singapore totaling US$3 million.
  7. PSA commenced proceedings in the BVI and Singapore regarding the Petroval Singapore shares.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Vorobiev Nikolay v Lush John Frederick Peters and others, Suit No 720 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No. 19 of 2010/B), [2011] SGHC 55

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lush and Ostinelli appointed as directors of Petroval Singapore.
Zakharov informed Vorobiev about potential sale of Petroval Singapore stake.
Agreement to make a US$10m loan to Petroval Singapore.
Defendants informed Vorobiev that PSA claimed the shares were held on trust.
Agreement to make a further loan of US$5m to Petroval Singapore.
PSA commenced proceedings in the British Virgin Islands against the defendants, Stainby and others.
PSA commenced proceedings in Singapore against the defendants and others.
Offer made to Vorobiev in Geneva to buy a stake in Petroval Singapore.
Novoselov ceased to be a director of Petroval Singapore.
Suit No 720 of 2009 filed.
Registrar's Appeal No. 19 of 2010/B.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court found that Switzerland was a more appropriate forum than Singapore.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] AC 460
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543
  2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court determined that the alleged misrepresentation took place in Switzerland.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1979] 2 WLR 228
  3. Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court determined that the alleged conspiracy took place in Switzerland.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Oil and Gas

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460England and WalesCited for the principles of forum non conveniens.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited for the application of the Spiliada principles in Singapore.
Diamond v Bank of London and Montreal LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1979] 2 WLR 228England and WalesCited for the principle that the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation is committed where the representation is received and acted upon.
Wing Hak Man and another v Bio-Treat Technology Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 446SingaporeCited for the 'substance of the tort' test in determining the applicable law for a tort.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the principle that the application of a foreign governing law may be accorded due weight in the absence of evidence of the content of the foreign law.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the principle that the place of the tort is prima facie the natural forum.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 22 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Misrepresentation
  • Conspiracy
  • Petroval Singapore
  • Stainby Overseas Ltd
  • Spiliada Principles
  • Lex Fori
  • Substance of the Tort

15.2 Keywords

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Misrepresentation
  • Singapore
  • Switzerland
  • Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit75
Misrepresentation70
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means65
Natural forum50
Asset Recovery30
Contract Law25
Breach of Contract20
Property Law15

16. Subjects

  • Conflict of Laws
  • Tort Law
  • Civil Procedure