Eleven Gesellschaft v Boxsentry: Enforcement of Berlin Default Judgment for Breach of Contract

In a dispute between Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH ("Eleven") and Boxsentry Pte Ltd ("Boxsentry"), the Singapore High Court heard appeals by Boxsentry against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment to Eleven and dismiss Boxsentry's application for a stay of proceedings. The case arose from a Partner Agreement where Boxsentry guaranteed revenue payments to Eleven for integrating Eleven's eXpurgate service into Boxsentry's RealMail application. Boxsentry failed to make payments, leading Eleven to obtain a default judgment in Berlin, Germany. Eleven then sought to enforce the Berlin judgment in Singapore. The High Court dismissed Boxsentry's appeals, finding Boxsentry's conduct dilatory and in bad faith, and upheld the enforcement of the Berlin default judgment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed; summary judgment granted to Eleven Gesellschaft.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court enforces a Berlin default judgment against Boxsentry for breaching a partner agreement with Eleven Gesellschaft.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBHRespondentCorporationSummary judgment grantedWon
Boxsentry Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeals dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Pateloo Eruthiyanathan AshokanKhattarWong LLP
Sheryl CherKhattarWong LLP
Nur Rafizah bte Mohamed Abdul GaffoorSelvam LLC
Sarbit Singh ChopraSelvam LLC

4. Facts

  1. Boxsentry and Eleven entered into a Partner Agreement (PA) on 2007-11-27.
  2. Boxsentry agreed to integrate Eleven’s eXpurgate service into its “RealMail” application.
  3. Boxsentry guaranteed quarterly revenue payments to Eleven for the first three years.
  4. Boxsentry made payments for the first and second quarters of the first year.
  5. Boxsentry failed to make payment for the third and fourth quarters of the first year.
  6. Eleven sued Boxsentry in Berlin and obtained a default judgment.
  7. Boxsentry ignored the Berlin legal proceedings and the Berlin default judgment.
  8. Eleven commenced proceedings in Singapore to enforce the Berlin default judgment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd, Suit No 677 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal Nos 292 and 293 of 2013), [2014] SGHC 210

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Partner Agreement signed between Boxsentry and Eleven.
Eleven sent an invoice for the third quarter payment to Boxsentry.
Eleven sent an email to Boxsentry to remind Boxsentry of its obligations to make payment for the third quarter.
Boxsentry replied Eleven, stating that the eXpurgate service had not performed up to expectations.
Eleven sent an email to Boxsentry, stating that there was no legal basis for a premature termination of the PA.
Boxsentry replied in its email that it would not make any further payment.
Eleven commenced legal action again Boxsentry in Berlin.
Berlin Regional Court sent a letter to the Registrar of the Singapore Supreme Court to serve the Berlin Statement of Claim and a judicial order on Boxsentry.
Berlin Statement of Claim and the Berlin Judicial Order were personally served on Boxsentry.
Berlin Regional Court issued the default judgment against Boxsentry.
Berlin default judgment was served personally on Boxsentry.
Berlin Regional Court was informed that the Berlin default judgment was served personally on Boxsentry.
Eleven's Singapore lawyers issued a letter of demand to Boxsentry.
Eleven's Singapore solicitors sent a second letter of demand to Boxsentry.
Another set of Berlin proceedings commenced.
Boxsentry entered its appearance in Singapore proceedings.
Boxsentry filed its defence and counterclaim against Eleven.
Eleven filed an application for a stay of proceedings in relation to Boxsentry’s counterclaim.
Court granted the stay in relation to Boxsentry’s counterclaim by consent.
Eleven applied for summary judgment against Boxsentry.
Boxsentry filed an appeal on the Berlin judgment.
Berlin restrain action was heard in the Berlin High Court.
Berlin High Court ruled against Boxsentry.
Boxsentry filed an appeal on the Berlin judgment.
The case was heard fully.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
    • Outcome: The court held that the Berlin default judgment was final and conclusive and was not obtained by fraud or in breach of natural justice, and therefore was enforceable in Singapore.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Finality and Conclusiveness of Judgment
      • Fraud in Obtaining Judgment
      • Breach of Natural Justice
    • Related Cases:
      • [2002] 1 SLR(R) 515
      • [2010] 3 SLR 342
  2. Stay of Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court held that Boxsentry's application for a stay of proceedings was brought in bad faith and dismissed the application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Multiplicity of Proceedings
      • Risk of Conflicting Judgments
      • International Comity
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 1 SLR 1192
      • [2011] 4 SLR 503
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377
      • [2012] 2 SLR 289
      • [2012] SGHCR 10
      • [1999] 1 All ER 40
      • [2013] EWHC 7

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Enforcement of Berlin Default Judgment
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Information Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Chin Cheung v Chan Fatt Cheung and othersCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 1192SingaporeCited for the principle that a stay may be granted to minimise the risk of conflicting judgments, enable the Singapore courts to have the benefit of the findings of foreign courts, promote international comity, and prevent legal resources from being wasted.
UBS AG v Telesto Investments Ltd and others and another matterHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 503SingaporeCited for the principle that the order in which claims were brought in competing jurisdictions is not to be given significant weight.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von UexkullHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the principle that it does not matter whether the action was started locally first or in a foreign country.
The Reecon WolfHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 289SingaporeCited for the principle that a stay of proceedings in Singapore had been granted even though the Malaysian proceedings which were concurrent were not very advanced.
Shanghai Construction (Group) General Co. Singapore Branch v Tan Poo SengHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHCR 10SingaporeCited for the principle that a stay would be ordered where there were “strong reasons” for doing so and where the benefits clearly outweighed any disadvantage to the plaintiff.
Reichhold Norway ASA and another v Goldman Sachs InternationalUnknownYes[1999] 1 All ER 40United KingdomCited for granting a stay on the basis of pending arbitration so that disputes could be efficiently resolved.
Isis Investments Ltd and Oscatello Investments Ltd and orsUnknownYes[2013] EWHC 7United KingdomCited as a case that accepted Reichhold.
Owens Bank Ltd v Bracco and anotherUnknownYes[1992] 2 AC 443UnknownCited for the principle that whether a foreign judgment should be enforced in Singapore was a matter for the Singapore courts to decide.
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Boots & Co (Aust) Pty LtdUnknownYes(1992) 34 FCR 287AustraliaCited for factors that the court should consider in an application for a stay.
Bella Products Pty Ltd v Creative Designs International LtdFederal Court of AustraliaYes[2009] FCA 868AustraliaCited for endorsing the factors listed by Sterling Pharmaceuticals.
Heng Joo See v Ho Pol LingUnknownYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 763SingaporeCited for the principle that the inherent jurisdiction of the court is meant to ensure that the court has the proper authority to deal effectively with an abuse of its process or the compromise of justice through written law.
Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier IncUnknownYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 515SingaporeCited for the principle that a foreign judgment in personam given by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction may be enforced by an action for the amount due under it so long as the foreign judgment is final and conclusive as between the same parties.
Bellezza Club Japan Co Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko and othersUnknownYes[2010] 3 SLR 342SingaporeCited for the test of finality is the treatment of the judgment by the foreign tribunal as res judicata.
Vanquelin v BouardUnknownYes(1863) 15 CB (NS) 341UnknownCited for the principle that default judgments have been held to be final and conclusive.
Carl Zeiss Siftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2)UnknownYes[1967] 1 AC 853UnknownCited for the principle that to determine the issue of finality, it is necessary to have regard to evidence of foreign law.
Abouloff v Oppenheimer & CoUnknownYes(1882) 10 QBD 295EnglandThe Court of Appeal departed from the traditional English position in Abouloff.
Jacobs v BeaverUnknownYes(1908) 17 OLR 496CanadaThe Court of Appeal adopted the Canadian-Australian approach laid down in Jacobs.
Keele v FindleyUnknownYes(1990) 21 NSWLR 444AustraliaThe Court of Appeal adopted the Canadian-Australian approach laid down in Keele.
Beals v SaldanhaSupreme Court of CanadaYes[2003] 3 SCR 416CanadaCited for the distinction between fraud going to the jurisdiction of the court (extrinsic fraud) and fraud going to the merits of the judgment (intrinsic fraud).
Associated Development Pte Ltd v Loong Sie Kiong GeraldUnknownYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 389SingaporeCited for the principle that Boxsentry only had to show that it had a fair or reasonable chance that there was a real or bona fide defence.
Tulip Furniture Enterprise Pte Ltd v Roberto Building Material Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1997] SGHC 114SingaporeCited for the principle that Boxsentry had to show that there was a triable issue or the need for certain apposite issues to be determined at trial.
Godard v GrayUnknownYes(1870) LR 6 QB 139UnknownCited for the principle that the foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon and cannot be impeached for any error, whether of fact or of law.
Grant v EastonUnknownYes(1883) 13 QBD 302UnknownCited for the principle that an application for summary judgment may be made on the ground that the defendant has no defence to the claim.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • eXpurgate service
  • RealMail application
  • Partner Agreement
  • Berlin default judgment
  • Stay of proceedings
  • Summary judgment
  • Enforcement of foreign judgment
  • Fraud
  • Natural justice

15.2 Keywords

  • foreign judgment
  • enforcement
  • breach of contract
  • stay of proceedings
  • default judgment
  • Berlin
  • Singapore
  • Eleven Gesellschaft
  • Boxsentry

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments90
Breach of Contract80
Contract Law75
Fraud and Deceit65
Civil Procedure60
Litigation50
Misrepresentation30
Asset Recovery30
Estoppel25
Arbitration20

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments