Zoom Communications v Broadcast Solutions: Forum Non Conveniens & Submission to Jurisdiction

Zoom Communications Ltd (Appellant), an Indian company, appealed against the decision to grant Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd (Respondent), a Singapore company, leave to serve a writ of summons in India and the dismissal of their application for a stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Singapore was the proper forum for the trial, the Appellant did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts, and the stay of proceedings sought by the Appellant was not granted.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding jurisdiction over foreign defendant. Court held Singapore was proper forum; stay of proceedings denied. Submission to jurisdiction not found.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Zoom Communications LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Moiz Haider SithawallaTan Rajah & Cheah
Chew Wei LinTan Rajah & Cheah
Meilyna Lyn PohTan Rajah & Cheah
S SuresshHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Teo Teresa KirstenHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Appellant is an Indian company supplying broadcast equipment and services.
  2. Respondent is a Singapore company in the same line of business.
  3. Respondent filed a writ of summons in Singapore claiming sums under three hire agreements.
  4. Respondent applied ex parte for leave to serve the writ on the Appellant in India.
  5. Appellant sought to set aside the Leave Order or, alternatively, a stay of proceedings.
  6. Sums claimed in the Singapore Action were to have been paid by the Appellant to the Respondent in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 119 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 44
  2. Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd v Zoom Communications Ltd, , [2014] 1 SLR 1324

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent filed writ of summons in Singapore
Respondent granted Leave Order
Respondent filed memorandum of service
Appellant filed memorandum of appearance
Appellant applied for extension of time to serve defence
Extension of time granted to Appellant
Appellant filed summons for stay of proceedings and setting aside of Leave Order
Summons heard by assistant registrar
Summons dismissed with costs
Appellant appealed to High Court judge
Appeal dismissed by Judge
Appellant obtained leave for further appeal
Judgment reserved
Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Submission to Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The Court held that the Appellant did not submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Waiver of objection to jurisdiction
      • Taking a step in proceedings
  2. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The Court held that Singapore was the proper forum for the trial of the dispute.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Burden of proof
      • Connecting factors
  3. Full and Frank Disclosure
    • Outcome: The Court found that there was material non-disclosure on the part of the Respondent when it made its ex parte application for the Leave Order but exercised its discretion not to set aside the Leave Order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Material facts
      • Ex parte application

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Stay of Proceedings
  3. Setting Aside of Leave Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Appellate Litigation
  • Jurisdiction
  • Forum Non Conveniens

11. Industries

  • Broadcasting

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460United KingdomCited as the leading decision on the doctrine of proper forum for the trial of an action.
Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd v Zoom Communications LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1324SingaporeThe decision from which this appeal arose.
The “Jian He”High CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 432SingaporeCited for the proposition that an application for a stay of proceedings in Singapore on improper forum grounds was not a challenge to the existence of the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction.
The Sydney ExpressNot AvailableYes[1988] Lloyd’s Rep 257Not AvailableCited as authority for the proposition that an application for a stay of proceedings in Singapore on improper forum grounds was not a challenge to the existence of the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction.
Williams & Glyn’s Bank plc v Astro Dinamico Compania Naviera SANot AvailableYes[1984] 1 WLR 438Not AvailableCited for the proposition that concurrently applying for a stay of proceedings on improper forum grounds and for the setting aside of an overseas service leave order need not amount to a submission to the local court’s jurisdiction.
Siemens AG v Holdrich Investment LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 1007SingaporeCited for the principle that jurisdiction exists as of right over a defendant who is within Singapore, but jurisdiction over a foreign defendant is discretionary.
Republic of the Philippines v Maler Foundation and othersCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 857SingaporeCited as an example of a case where a party submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts by praying for the release of certain funds.
Chan Chin Cheung v Chan Fatt Cheung and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 1192SingaporeCited for the principle that a foreign defendant who applies for a stay of proceedings on improper forum grounds without also contesting the existence of the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction will ordinarily be taken to have submitted to jurisdiction.
Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and othersUK Supreme CourtYes[2012] UKSC 46United KingdomCited for the proposition that submission to jurisdiction may be inferred if the foreign defendant has taken a step that is “only necessary or only useful” if any objection to the existence of the local court’s jurisdiction has been waived.
Advent Capital plc v G N Ellinas Imports-Exports Ltd and Standard Trading LimitedHigh Court of JusticeYes[2005] EWHC 1242 (Comm)England and WalesCited for the principle that there has to be an unequivocal representation by word or conduct that objection is not taken to the relevant jurisdiction.
Rein v SteinNot AvailableYes[1892] 66 LT 469Not AvailableCited for the principle that, in order to establish a waiver, you must show that the party alleged to have waived his objection has taken some step which is only necessary or only useful if the objection has been actually waived, or if the objection has never been entertained at all.
In re Dulles’ Settlement (No 2)Court of AppealYes[1951] Ch 842England and WalesCited for the principle that a man has not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of a court, when he has all the time been vigorously protesting that it has no jurisdiction.
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 363SingaporeCited for the principle that where the court’s jurisdiction is premised on Order 11, the burden of proving that Singapore is the appropriate forum falls on the plaintiff.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”High CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited for the test of materiality in respect of the failure to provide full and frank disclosure of all the material facts when applying ex parte for the Leave Order.
Lubbe v Cape plcHouse of LordsYes[2000] 1 WLR 1545United KingdomCited for the principle that the jurisdiction to stay is liable to be perverted if parties litigate the issue at different levels of the judicial hierarchy in the hope of persuading a higher court to strike a different balance in the factors pointing for and against a foreign forum.
VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp and othersUK Supreme CourtYes[2013] UKSC 5United KingdomCited for the principle that the jurisdiction to stay is liable to be perverted if parties litigate the issue at different levels of the judicial hierarchy in the hope of persuading a higher court to strike a different balance in the factors pointing for and against a foreign forum.
Société Générale de Paris v Dreyfus BrothersCourt of AppealYes(1885) 29 Ch D 239England and WalesCited for the principle that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Singapore courts over a foreign defendant is, in a real sense, an imposition on him.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court O 12 r 7(1)Singapore
Rules of Court O 12 r 7(2)Singapore
Rules of Court O 11Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum non conveniens
  • Submission to jurisdiction
  • Overseas service leave order
  • Spiliada test
  • Full and frank disclosure
  • Proper forum
  • Connecting factors
  • Stay of proceedings

15.2 Keywords

  • Jurisdiction
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Singapore
  • India
  • Broadcast Equipment
  • Civil Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Jurisdiction90
Contract Law80
Breach of Contract70
Commercial Disputes60
Civil Procedure50
Arbitration40
Asset Recovery30
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Jurisdiction
  • Forum Non Conveniens