Abdul Rashid v Hii Yii Ann: Forum Non Conveniens & Breach of Settlement Agreement
In Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v Hii Yii Ann, the Singapore High Court addressed Hii Yii Ann's appeal against the dismissal of his stay application. Abdul Rashid sued Hii for breach of a settlement agreement. Hii sought a stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens, arguing Queensland, Australia was the more appropriate forum due to a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed the appeal, finding that Hii failed to demonstrate Australia was clearly the more appropriate forum. The court determined that the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause did not automatically designate Australia as the most appropriate forum.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal 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 judgment on a stay application in a breach of settlement agreement case, addressing forum non conveniens and jurisdiction clauses.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Francis Xavier, Ang Tze Phern |
| Hii Yii Ann | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Tan Tee Jim, Sharon Chong, Devi Haridas |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Francis Xavier | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Ang Tze Phern | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Tan Tee Jim | Sim Law Practice LLC |
| Sharon Chong | Sim Law Practice LLC |
| Devi Haridas | Sim Law Practice LLC |
4. Facts
- Rashid sued Hii for breach of a settlement agreement.
- The settlement agreement contained a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to Queensland, Australia.
- The settlement agreement was governed by English law.
- Hii applied for a stay of the Singapore action based on forum non conveniens.
- Australia was chosen as the non-exclusive jurisdiction because Hii had assets there.
- Hii has assets in Singapore.
- The underlying transactions had nothing to do with Australia.
5. Formal Citations
- Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v Hii Yii Ann, Suit No 197 of 2014 (Registrar's Appeal No 202 of 2014 and Summons No 3268 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 194
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Settlement agreement signed | |
| Lawsuit filed | |
| Hii's affidavit filed | |
| Rashid's second affidavit filed | |
| Hii's affidavit filed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Australia was clearly the more appropriate forum than Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of Spiliada principles
- Construction of non-exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Burden of proof in stay applications
- Related Cases:
- [1987] AC 460
- [2012] 2 SLR 519
- Interpretation of Contractual Clauses
- Outcome: The court construed the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause as not designating Australia as the most appropriate jurisdiction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Governing law clause
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 2 SLR 519
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
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 principles governing a stay application based on forum non conveniens. |
| Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala | Court of Appeal | No | [2012] 2 SLR 519 | Singapore | Cited for the application of Spiliada principles in Singapore courts and the construction of non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. |
| S & W Berisford Plc and NGI International Precious Metals Inc v New Hamphire Insurance Co | Queen's Bench | No | [1990] 2 QB 631 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the effect of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in English law. |
| British Aerospace Plc v Dee Howard Co | High Court | No | [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the 'modified Spiliada approach' and the effect of freely negotiated non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. |
| Antec International Ltd v Biosafety USA Inc | High Court | No | [2006] EWHC 47 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for principles regarding non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses and choice of English law. |
| Qioptiq Ltd v Teledyne Scientific & Imaging LLC | High Court | No | [2011] EWHC 229 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for approval of the Antec principles regarding non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses. |
| E D & F Man Ship Ltd v Kvaerner Gibraltar Ltd (The Rothnie) | High Court | No | [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 206 | Gibraltar | Cited regarding the interpretation of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to a foreign court. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited regarding the proof of foreign law in Singapore courts. |
| Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd v Navalmar UK Ltd | High Court | No | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 688 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need for expert evidence on English law. |
| Noble Power Investments Ltd v Nissei Stomach Tokyo Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 5 HKLRD 631 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the effect of a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause and the burden of proof in stay applications. |
| PT Jaya Putra Kundur Indah v Guthrie Overseas Investments Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 285 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inference from a non-exclusive choice of foreign court clause. |
| Bambang Sutrisno v Bali International Finance Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | No | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 632 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proof in stay applications with specific terms in the jurisdiction clause. |
| Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar Jhunjhunwala | High Court | No | [2011] SGHC 185 | Singapore | Cited regarding the High Court's application of the modified Spiliada approach. |
| The Jian He | High Court | No | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 432 | Singapore | Cited regarding the effect of the absence of a genuine substantive dispute on a stay application. |
| Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] SGCA 44 | Singapore | Cited regarding the place where the breach of the agreements occurred. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Forum non conveniens
- Non-exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Stay application
- Spiliada principles
- Governing law
- Most appropriate jurisdiction
- Settlement agreement
15.2 Keywords
- forum non conveniens
- jurisdiction clause
- stay application
- breach of contract
- settlement agreement
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Contract Law
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Conflict of Laws