R1 International v Lonstroff: Anti-Suit Injunction & International Arbitration

R1 International Pte Ltd, a Singapore company, sued Lonstroff AG, a Swiss company, seeking a permanent anti-suit injunction to prevent Lonstroff from pursuing legal proceedings in Switzerland, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Judith Prakash J, discharged the interim anti-suit injunction and dismissed R1 International's application for a permanent injunction, finding that the contract between the parties did not contain a valid arbitration clause.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal by Lonstroff allowed; interim anti-suit injunction discharged; R1 International's application for a permanent anti-suit injunction dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

R1 International sought to restrain Lonstroff from Swiss court proceedings in favor of arbitration. The court discharged the interim injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

13 April 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
R1 International Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Mohamed Ibrahim of Achievers LLC
Lonstroff AG	Defendant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Navin Joseph Lobo of ATMD Bird & Bird LLP Cassandra Ow of ATMD Bird & Bird LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Mohamed Ibrahim	Achievers LLC
Navin Joseph Lobo	ATMD Bird & Bird LLP
Cassandra Ow	ATMD Bird & Bird LLP

4. Facts

R1 International and Lonstroff engaged in multiple rubber transactions.
R1 International sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain Lonstroff from pursuing legal action in Switzerland.
The dispute arose from the second order due to the smell of the rubber supplied.
Lonstroff commenced legal proceedings against R1 International in Switzerland.
R1 International requested SICOM to set up an arbitration tribunal.
Lonstroff did not sign the sales contract for the second order.

5. Formal Citations

R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG, Originating Summons No 704 of 2013, Summons No 5545 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 69

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-01-24	R1 Europe sent an email to Mr Schenker regarding the first order.
2012-01-25	First order concluded between R1 International and Lonstroff.
2012-01-27	R1 Europe sent a sales contract to Lonstroff.
2012-02-01	R1 Europe sent an email to Lonstroff requesting them to sign a sales contract dated 27 January 2012.
2012-05-25	Lonstroff accepted delivery of the first order.
2012-07-16	Lonstroff made payment to R1 International for the first order.
2012-08-15	Second order concluded between R1 International and Lonstroff.
2012-08-16	R1 International sent out a sales contract for the second order.
2012-08-27	Lonstroff accepted delivery of the second order.
2012-08-31	R1 Europe sent an email on behalf of R1 International to Lonstroff with a sales contract dated 16 August.
2012-09-20	Lonstroff emailed R1 Europe, complaining about the smell of the rubber supplied.
2013-03-28	Lonstroff commenced legal proceedings against R1 International in Switzerland.
2013-07-02	R1 International requested SICOM to set up an arbitration tribunal.
2013-07-17	SICOM replied to R1 International's request.
2013-08-05	R1 International filed proceedings to obtain an anti-suit injunction.
2014-04-14	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Enforceability of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that the contract for the second order did not contain a valid arbitration clause.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Incorporation of arbitration clause by trade custom
  - Incorporation of arbitration clause by previous course of dealing
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 1 SLR 130
  - [2013] 5 MLJ 625
Granting of Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that it had the power to grant permanent anti-suit injunctions in support of international arbitration, but declined to do so in this case.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 2 SLR 449

8. Remedies Sought

Permanent Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Arbitration

11. Industries

Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 587	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's ability to take judicial notice of facts.
International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 130	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a valid arbitration agreement can be constituted by reference.
Ajwa for Food Industries Co (MIGOP), Egypt v Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 5 MLJ 625	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that an arbitration agreement need not be signed and can be incorporated by previous course of dealing.
Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd v Wadkin Robinson Asia Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 424	Singapore	Cited regarding the length of relationship required to establish incorporation by previous course of dealing.
United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd v L & M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 524	Singapore	Cited regarding the incorporation of onerous terms after an oral contract has been acted upon.
WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka	High Court	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 1088	Singapore	Cited for sustaining an interim anti-suit injunction in aid of domestic international arbitration.
Maldives Airports Co Ltd and another v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 449	Singapore	Cited for the court's power to grant injunctions, including permanent anti-suit injunctions, necessary for the preservation of evidence or assets.
AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC	UK Supreme Court	Yes	[2013] 1 WLR 1889	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that clear words are needed to abrogate the court's general jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions.
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak	Privy Council	Yes	[1987] AC 879	United Kingdom	Cited for the established principles concerning the grant of permanent anti-suit injunctions.
People’s Insurance Co Ltd v Akai Pty Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 291	Singapore	Cited as a warning that Singapore should not be an international busybody when intervening with a permanent anti-suit injunction to support foreign international arbitration.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anti-suit injunction
Arbitration agreement
IRAC terms
SICOM arbitration agreement
Trade custom
Previous course of dealing
Incorporation by reference

15.2 Keywords

Anti-suit injunction
Arbitration
Contract
Singapore
Switzerland
Rubber

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	90
International Arbitration	90
Anti-suit injunction	80
Breach of Contract	70
Contract Law	70
Commercial Arbitration	60
Commercial Disputes	60
Submission to Jurisdiction	50
Commercial Law	50
Jurisdiction	50
International Trade	30

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Contract Law
Civil Procedure
International Trade