Virsagi Management v Welltech Construction: Forum Non Conveniens & Lis Alibi Pendens in Overseas Training Centre Dispute

In Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed disputes arising from overseas training centres for construction workers in Bangladesh. Virsagi sued Welltech for interference with the Gazipur Agreement and Gazipur for wrongful termination of the same agreement. The court, presided over by Quentin Loh J, granted Welltech's and Gazipur's applications for a stay of proceedings based on lis alibi pendens and forum non conveniens, dismissing Virsagi's application for an injunction. The court determined that Bangladesh was the more appropriate forum for resolving the disputes.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications for stay of proceedings granted based on lis alibi pendens and forum non conveniens; application for injunction dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning a dispute over overseas training centres in Bangladesh. Court granted stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens and lis alibi pendens.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Virsagi Management (S) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLostAndrew J Hanam
Welltech Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication GrantedWonRamalingam Kasi
Ferdous Ahmed BadelDefendantIndividualApplication GrantedWonCheah Kok Lim

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Quentin LohJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Andrew J HanamAndrew LLC
Ramalingam KasiRaj Kumar
Cheah Kok LimCheah Associates LLC

4. Facts

  1. Virsagi and Welltech collaborated to set up overseas test centres (OTCs) in Bangladesh.
  2. Welltech obtained BCA approval to operate an OTC in Dhaka.
  3. Virsagi introduced Rupsha Overseas Ltd as a local partner for the joint venture.
  4. Virsagi and Welltech entered into the Principal Agreement.
  5. Welltech terminated the Principal Agreement on 31 December 2011.
  6. Virsagi entered into the Gazipur Agreement with Gazipur Air Express International.
  7. Virsagi commenced Dhaka CM 8/2012 in Bangladesh, alleging minority oppression.
  8. The Dhaka High Court dismissed Virsagi's petition in Dhaka CM 8/2012.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another suit, , [2012] SGHC 207

6. Timeline

DateEvent
BCA granted Welltech approval to operate an OTC in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Welltech submitted the Rupsha Agreement to the BCA.
Virsagi entered into an agreement with GN International to establish the OTC.
WTPL was incorporated in Dhaka.
Virsagi and Gazipur entered into the Gazipur Agreement.
Virsagi and Gazipur entered into a Supplementary Agreement.
Welltech served a written notice of termination of the Principal Agreement.
The Principal Agreement was terminated.
Victor commenced Dhaka CM 8/2012 in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division.
Victor obtained an ad-interim order from the Dhaka High Court.
A stay on the ad-interim order was granted.
Virsagi commenced Suit 64.
Virsagi filed Summons 869.
Ministry of Labour and Manpower, Bangladesh, temporarily suspended permission given to Badal/Gazipur to operate WTPL’s OTC.
Badal/Gazipur took out separate judicial review proceedings.
Dhaka High Court delivered its judgment in Dhaka CM 8/2012.
Decision Date of the Singapore High Court.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that Bangladesh was the more appropriate forum to determine the disputes.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 2 SLR(R) 955
      • [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377
      • [1987] AC 460
  2. Lis Alibi Pendens
    • Outcome: The court found that the issues and relief claimed in Singapore and Bangladesh were substantially the same, supporting a stay of proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 2 SLR(R) 955
  3. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court did not make a definitive finding on breach of contract but considered the governing law clause and the practical enforceability of the Gazipur Agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Unlawful Interference with Contract
    • Outcome: The court considered whether Welltech unlawfully interfered with the Gazipur Agreement but did not make a definitive finding, given the stay of proceedings.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Injunctive Relief
    • Outcome: The court dismissed Virsagi's application for a mandatory injunction, finding that the requirements for such relief were not met.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112
      • [1979] AC 210
      • [1996] AC 284
      • [1975] AC 396
      • [2010] SGHC 191

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Damages
  3. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Tort of Inducing Breach of Contract
  • Unlawful Interference with Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yusen Air & Sea Services (S) Pte Ltd v KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 955SingaporeCited as authoritative precedent on the law of lis alibi pendens and forum non conveniens.
Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings LtdN/AYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 148SingaporeCited as precedent on the law of forum non conveniens.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd & Anor v Nicolai Baron von UexkullN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited as precedent on the law of forum non conveniens.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdN/AYes[1987] AC 460England and WalesCited for the application of the Spiliada principles in determining forum non conveniens.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the principle that an injunction can only be obtained if there is a dispute being substantially litigated in Singapore.
Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera SAN/AYes[1979] AC 210England and WalesCited for the reasoning that a plaintiff could not obtain a Mareva injunction which was essentially ancillary to proceedings that were pending in a foreign court.
Mercedes Benz AG v LeiduckN/AYes[1996] AC 284England and WalesCited for the principle that a plaintiff could not obtain a Mareva injunction which was essentially ancillary to proceedings that were pending in a foreign court.
American Cynamid Co v Ethicon LtdN/AYes[1975] AC 396England and WalesCited for conditions to be satisfied for a mandatory injunction.
Rikvin Consultancy Pte Ltd v Pardeep Singh Boparai and anotherHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 191SingaporeCited for the principle that for a mandatory injunction, the court must be satisfied that if the injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer “irremediable prejudice” that cannot be put right by damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 11 Rule 1(b) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Order 11 Rule 1(d)(iii) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Order 11 Rule 1(e) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Overseas Training Centre
  • BCA Approval
  • Gazipur Agreement
  • Principal Agreement
  • Lis Alibi Pendens
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • WTPL
  • Dhaka CM 8/2012

15.2 Keywords

  • overseas training centre
  • construction workers
  • Bangladesh
  • Singapore
  • lis alibi pendens
  • forum non conveniens
  • injunction

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Conflict of Laws

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Lis Alibi Pendens
  • Injunctions