Kikla v Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp: Forum Non Conveniens & Service Out of Jurisdiction
In Dinesh Kishin Kikla (as Administrator of the Estate of Lalitha Kishin Kikla) v The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed applications by the first and second defendants for a stay of proceedings in favor of the UAE courts and to set aside an order granting leave to serve the writ of summons out of jurisdiction. The plaintiff brought claims against the defendants for wrongful debit, failure to repay monies, breach of contract, negligence, mistake of fact, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt. The court dismissed the defendants' applications, finding that the UAE was not the clearly more appropriate forum.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Defendants' applications dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court considers stay of suit in favor of UAE courts and service out of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the applications.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Application for stay of suit dismissed | Lost | |
| Dinesh Kishin Kikla (as Administrator of the Estate of Lalitha Kishin Kikla also known as Lalita Kishin Kikla, Deceased) | Plaintiff | Individual | Application by defendants dismissed | Won | |
| HSBC Bank Middle East Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Application for stay of suit dismissed | Lost | |
| Namrata Agarwal also known as Namrata Kikla D/O Kishin Kikla (as Administrator of the Estate of Lalitha Kishin Kikla also known as Lalita Kishin Kikla, Deceased) | Defendant | Individual | Nominal defendant, no substantive claims made | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chee Min Ping | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Lalitha Kishin Kikla, a resident of Dubai, held fixed deposit accounts with HSBC Singapore.
- Upon Lalitha's death, her husband, Kishin Kikla, instructed HSBC Singapore to transfer funds from her accounts to HSBC Middle East.
- The funds were used to discharge Kishin Kikla's companies' overdraft facilities with HSBC Middle East.
- The plaintiff, as co-administrator of Lalitha's estate, alleges wrongful debit and breach of mandate by HSBC Singapore.
- HSBC Middle East claims a security interest was granted by Lalitha over her fixed deposits.
- A document titled 'Security Over Deposits with the Bank' was presented as evidence of the security interest.
- The agreement 'Security Over Deposits with the Bank' was executed only with respect to a portion of the deposit amount.
5. Formal Citations
- Dinesh Kishin Kikla (as Administrator of the Estate of Lalitha Kishin Kikla also known as Lalita Kishin Kikla, Deceased)vThe Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and others, Suit No 76 of 2012/R (Summons No 4327 and 4911 of 2012), [2013] SGHCR 06
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lalitha Kishin Kikla passed away intestate | |
| Monies transferred to HSBC Singapore | |
| Kishin Kikla's companies granted overdraft facilities by HSBC Middle East | |
| Funds transferred from Lalitha's accounts to HSBC Middle East | |
| Kishin Kikla passed away | |
| Suit No 76 of 2012/R filed | |
| Affidavits filed by Bulos and Roberts | |
| Judgment Reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court held that the UAE was not the clearly more appropriate forum to hear the dispute and dismissed the defendants' applications for a stay of proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Availability of alternative forum
- Connecting factors to relevant jurisdictions
- Enforceability of judgment
- Service Out of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to set aside the order granting leave to the plaintiff to serve the writ of summons out of jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Mistake of Fact
- Dishonest Assistance
- Knowing Receipt
- Restitution
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Service Out of Jurisdiction
11. Industries
- Banking
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 460 | England and Wales | Cited for the legal principles regarding forum non conveniens and the two-stage Spiliada test. |
| JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 391 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Spiliada test in Singapore. |
| CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543 | Singapore | Cited for the summary of the Spiliada test and principles for granting a stay of proceedings. |
| Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 381 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the weight of each relevant factor in balancing competing interests depends on the facts of each case. |
| Rickshaw Investments and another v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the weight of each relevant factor in balancing competing interests depends on the facts of each case. |
| Citibank NA v Robert | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 465 | Singapore | Cited for the court's discretion in granting a stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens, even with a jurisdiction clause. |
| PT Jaya Putra Kundur Indah v Guthrie Overseas Investments Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 285 | Singapore | Cited for the effect of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. |
| Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 519 | Singapore | Cited for the analysis of non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. |
| OJSC Oil Company v Roman Arkadievich Abrahamovich | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2008] EWHC 2613 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the classification of dishonest assistance as a tort for determining governing law. |
| Thahir Kartika Ratna v PT Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 312 | Singapore | Cited for the characterization of moneys paid under a mistake of fact and knowing receipt as restitutionary claims. |
| Macmillan Inc v Bishopgate Investment Trust PLC and others (No 3) | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 387 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of looking beyond the formulation of the claim to identify the true issues in dispute for determining proper law. |
| Murakami Takako v Wiryadi Louise Maria and others (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 198 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the statement that rules of conflicts of laws are directed at the issue of law in dispute, rather than the cause of action. |
| Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 345 | Singapore | Cited for the principles applicable to the second stage of the Spiliada test. |
| Ang Ming Chuang v Singapore Airlines Ltd (Civil Aeronautics Administration, Third Party) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 409 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that the plaintiff's inability to enforce a judgment in a foreign jurisdiction is not a factor which a defendant may raise in favor of a stay application; court departs from this holding. |
| Murakami Takako (executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, deceased) v Wiryadi Louise Maria and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 508 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that the enforceability of an Indonesian judgment in other jurisdictions is an important consideration in determining the more appropriate forum. |
| Ismail bin Sukardi v Kama bin Ikhwan and another | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 191 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should be concerned with the appropriateness of the forum for the trial process, as opposed to the enforceability of judgments. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| UAE Civil Procedures Law (Federal Law No 11 of 1982) | United Arab Emirates |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Service Out of Jurisdiction
- Overdraft Facilities
- Security Interest
- Lien
- Authorisation Letter
- Fixed Deposit Accounts
- Spiliada Test
- Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
15.2 Keywords
- forum non conveniens
- service out of jurisdiction
- HSBC
- banking
- Singapore
- UAE
- trust
- estate
- fixed deposit
- breach of contract
- negligence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Forum Non Conveniens | 65 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Conflict of Laws | 55 |
| Banking and Finance | 50 |
| Security Interest | 45 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 40 |
| Dishonest assistance | 35 |
| Knowing Receipt | 30 |
| Restitution | 25 |
| Property Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Banking
- Conflict of Laws