Belbana N.V. v APL Co Pte Ltd: Forum Election, Lis Alibi Pendens & Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause in Shipping Contract
In Belbana N.V. v APL Co Pte Ltd and another, the High Court of Singapore addressed applications from both the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding lis alibi pendens and forum election. The Plaintiff, Belbana N.V., contracted with APL Co Pte Ltd for the shipment of bananas from Ecuador to Belgium. After a dispute arose, Belbana N.V. commenced proceedings in both Belgium and Singapore. The court ordered the Plaintiff to elect between pursuing its claim in Belgium or Singapore. The Plaintiff elected to pursue its claim in Belgium, and the Singapore proceedings were stayed. The court dismissed SUM 1620 and allowed SUM 2325 with amendments.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
SUM 1620 was dismissed. SUM 2325 was allowed with amendments to stay the Singapore proceedings if the Plaintiff elects to pursue its claim in Belgium.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Belbana N.V. v APL Co Pte Ltd involves forum election, lis alibi pendens, and an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a shipping contract. The court ordered the plaintiff to elect a jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APL Co Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | SUM 1620 dismissed; SUM 2325 allowed with amendments | Won | |
| Another | Defendant | Other | SUM 1620 dismissed; SUM 2325 allowed with amendments | Won | |
| Belbana N.V | Plaintiff | Corporation | Ordered to elect between pursuing claim in Belgium or Singapore | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Paul Tan | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff contracted with the 1st Defendant to ship bananas from Ecuador to Belgium.
- The 1st Defendant acted as agent for the 2nd Defendant.
- The Defendants shipped the Plaintiff’s cargoes of bananas in seven separate shipments from April to August 2012.
- Bills of lading were issued for each of the seven shipments.
- The cargoes of bananas were to be shipped from Ecuador to Rotterdam and then transported by road to Blankenberge, Belgium.
- The Plaintiff claimed the Defendants breached their contractual obligations or duties as bailees or were negligent.
- The Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the Defendants in the Bruges Court in Belgium on 1 February 2013.
- The Plaintiff commenced action in the Singapore Courts on 8 February 2013 to preserve the limitation period.
5. Formal Citations
- Belbana N.V v APL Co Pte Ltd and another, Admiralty in Personam No 50 of 2013, Summons No 1620 of 2014 and No 2325 of 2014, [2014] SGHCR 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Shipments of bananas from Ecuador to Belgium began. | |
| Shipments of bananas from Ecuador to Belgium ended. | |
| Proceedings commenced against the Defendants in the Bruges Court in Belgium. | |
| Action commenced in the Singapore Courts. | |
| Parties heard in court. | |
| Decision delivered with oral grounds. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Lis Alibi Pendens
- Outcome: The court found a common plaintiff lis alibi pendens situation.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Risk of inconsistent decisions
- Multiplicity of proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 1 SLR 543
- [2013] 4 SLR 1097
- Forum Election
- Outcome: The court ordered the Plaintiff to elect between pursuing its claim in Belgium or Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 1097
- Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
- Outcome: The court acknowledged the existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of the Singapore Courts.
- Category: Substantive
- Applicability of CMR
- Outcome: The court considered the Plaintiff's argument that the CMR rendered the exclusive jurisdiction clause null and void.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Breach of duty as bailee
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Shipping Disputes
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Transportation
- Agriculture
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lanna Resources Public Co Ltd v Tan Beng Phiau Dick | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 543 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirements for concurrent proceedings, specifically that the parties, issues, and reliefs claimed must be the same and arise from the same transactions. |
| Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1097 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a total correspondence of issues is not required to show lis alibi pendens, and for the court's discretion to grant a stay instead of a discontinuance. |
| Attorney General v Arthur Andersen & Co | N/A | Yes | [1989] ECC 224 | N/A | Cited for the argument that a stay should be granted in cases of lis alibi pendens, and for the test of whether justice requires the proceedings to be stayed. |
| Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Company (No. 5) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 533 | England | Cited regarding the principle that a plaintiff should face the consequences of commencing an action and not be allowed to dictate the timetable. |
| Ledra Fisheries Ltd v Turner | English Court | Yes | [2003] EWCA 1049 (Ch) | England | Cited for the principle that the usual approach is to put the Plaintiff to election as to which set of proceedings to discontinue and if the party did not elect, to strike out one set of proceedings. |
| Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v Equitas Insurance Ltd | English Court | Yes | [2013] EWHC 3713 (Comm) | England | Cited for the principle that the plaintiff had not shown that justice required the English proceedings to be stayed pending the US proceedings. |
| Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148 | Singapore | Cited for the reason why in a common plaintiff lis alibi pendens situation a plaintiff should be compelled to elect. |
| The El Amria | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119 | England | Cited for the statement that parallel proceedings would put the courts in the different jurisdictions in a race with each other as to which court would reach a decision first. |
| Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 358 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of approbation and reprobation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road | Belgium |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Lis alibi pendens
- Forum election
- Exclusive jurisdiction clause
- CMR
- Bills of lading
- Service contract
- Limitation period
- Stay of proceedings
- Discontinuance of proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Lis alibi pendens
- Forum election
- Exclusive jurisdiction clause
- CMR
- Contract
- Belgium
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law