Broadcast Solutions v Zoom Communications: Setting Aside Order & Forum Non Conveniens

In Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd v Zoom Communications Ltd, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal by Zoom Communications Ltd against the dismissal of its application to set aside an order granting Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd leave to serve a writ of summons in India and to stay proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Zoom had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore court by proceeding with its prayer for a stay of the Singapore suit. The court also granted Zoom leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed. The court found that Zoom Communications Ltd had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore court by proceeding with its prayer for a stay of the Singapore suit.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment in Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd v Zoom Communications Ltd regarding setting aside an order for service and forum non conveniens.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Zoom Communications LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Moiz Haider SithawallaTan Rajah & Cheah
Meilyna Lyn PohTan Rajah & Cheah
Philip FongHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Kirsten TeoHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd claimed three sums of money from Zoom Communications Ltd in respect of three hire purchase agreements.
  2. Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd obtained an order to serve the writ of summons on Zoom Communications Ltd in India.
  3. Zoom Communications Ltd filed an application to set aside the order or stay the Singapore suit on the ground of forum non conveniens.
  4. Zoom Communications Ltd proceeded with its prayer for a stay of the Singapore suit.
  5. The agreements in question were apparently not in writing.
  6. The Standard Terms containing the choice of Singapore law provision were found in Broadcast’s own document which was not signed or agreed to by Zoom.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd v Zoom Communications Ltd, Suit No 119 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 181 of 2013) Summons No 3444 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 273

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd filed writ of summons
Court granted Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd leave to serve writ of summons on Zoom Communications Ltd in India
Writ of summons served on Zoom Communications Ltd in India
Zoom Communications Ltd filed memorandum of appearance
Zoom Communications Ltd filed application for extension of time to file defence
Zoom Communications Ltd obtained order for extension of time to file defence
Zoom Communications Ltd filed Setting Aside and Stay Application
Assistant Registrar dismissed Setting Aside and Stay Application
Zoom Communications Ltd filed notice of appeal
Zoom Communications Ltd obtained order for further extension of time to file defence
High Court dismissed Zoom Communications Ltd's appeal
Court granted Zoom Communications Ltd leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Submission to Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that Zoom Communications Ltd had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore court by proceeding with its prayer for a stay of the Singapore suit.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Taking a step in proceedings
      • Application for stay of proceedings
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 460
      • [1984] 1 WLR 438
      • [2010] 1 SLR 1192
      • [1999] 3 SLR(R) 432
  2. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that Zoom Communications Ltd had failed to discharge its burden of establishing clearly and distinctly that there was a more appropriate jurisdiction than Singapore to hear the dispute.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Burden of proof
      • More appropriate jurisdiction
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] 1 AC 460
  3. Material Non-Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court found that Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd had failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts when it obtained the Order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty of full and frank disclosure
      • Ex parte application

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Broadcasting
  • Communications

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Carona Holdings Pte Ltd and others v Go Go Delicacy Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 460SingaporeCited regarding whether an application for an extension of time to file a defence constitutes a step in the proceedings.
Williams & Glyn’s Bank Plc v Astro Dinamico Compania Naviera SAN/AYes[1984] 1 WLR 438EnglandCited regarding whether a prayer for a stay is inconsistent with a prayer disputing jurisdiction.
Chan Chin Cheung v Chan Fatt Cheung & othersCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 1192SingaporeCited for the distinction between challenging the court's jurisdiction and applying for a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens.
The “Jian He”Court of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 432SingaporeCited regarding whether a stay application on the ground of a foreign jurisdiction clause challenges the jurisdiction of the court.
The “Sydney Express”N/AYes[1988] Lloyd's Rep 257N/ACited regarding whether a stay application amounts to a submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Bankers Trust Co v GaladariN/AYes[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 446N/ACited for the observation that there is a distinction between challenging the court's jurisdiction and applying for a stay.
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 363SingaporeCited regarding the burden of proof in cases where the court's jurisdiction is premised on Order 11 of the Rules of Court.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdN/AYes[1987] 1 AC 460N/ACited for the applicable principles in a stay application on the ground of forum non conveniens.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 12 Rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court
Order 12 Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 12 Rule 7(5) of the Rules of Court
Order 12 Rule 7(6) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Setting aside order
  • Forum non conveniens
  • Submission to jurisdiction
  • Material non-disclosure
  • Stay of proceedings
  • Hire purchase agreements

15.2 Keywords

  • Jurisdiction
  • Singapore
  • Broadcast Solutions
  • Zoom Communications
  • Rules of Court
  • Forum non conveniens
  • Appeal
  • Stay of proceedings

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Procedure90
Jurisdiction80
Forum Non Conveniens75
Breach of Contract70
Contract Law70
Material non-disclosure65
Service of writ out of jurisdiction60
Asset Recovery30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Jurisdiction
  • Conflict of Laws