Oei Hong Leong v Goldman Sachs International: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration Agreement Dispute

In Oei Hong Leong v Goldman Sachs International, the Singapore High Court addressed an application for a stay of proceedings under the International Arbitration Act. The plaintiff, Mr. Oei Hong Leong, sued Goldman Sachs International (GSI) for alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. The dispute involved two agreements: an ISDA Master Agreement with a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause favoring English courts, and an Account Agreement Pack containing arbitration agreements. The court, Eunice Chua AR, granted the stay, finding that the Account Agreement Pack was at the commercial center of the dispute.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application for a stay of proceedings granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court granted a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration, finding the Account Agreement Pack at the commercial center of the dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Oei Hong LeongPlaintiffIndividualApplication for stay grantedLost
Goldman Sachs InternationalDefendantCorporationApplication for stay grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Eunice ChuaAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Oei had a private banking relationship with Goldman Sachs since 2001.
  2. Mr. Oei entered into two BRL/JPY currency option trades with GSI on 15 May 2013.
  3. The trades were terminated on 17 June 2013 at a loss.
  4. The ISDA Agreement contains a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.
  5. The Account Agreement Pack contains arbitration agreements.
  6. The Account Agreement Pack was delivered to Mr. Oei on 9 September 2011.
  7. Mr. Oei signed and returned an acknowledgment receipt of the Account Agreement Pack on 27 March 2012.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Oei Hong Leong v Goldman Sachs International, Suit No 834 of 2013; Summons No 5777 of 2013, [2014] SGHCR 2

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Oei's private banking relationship with Goldman Sachs began.
ISDA Master Agreement dated between Mr. Oei and GSI.
Account Agreement Pack delivered to Mr. Oei.
Mr. Oei signed and returned an acknowledgment receipt of the Account Agreement Pack.
Mr. Oei entered into two BRL/JPY currency option trades with GSI.
BRL/JPY currency option trades were terminated at a loss.
Suit No 834 of 2013 filed.
Summons No 5777 of 2013 filed.
Judgment reserved.
Application for a stay of proceedings granted.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Stay of Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court granted the application for a stay of proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Applicability of arbitration agreement
      • Interpretation of competing dispute resolution clauses
  2. Interpretation of Contractual Terms
    • Outcome: The court determined the objective intention of the parties based on the agreements.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Superseding agreements
      • Objective intention of parties

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tjong Very Sumito v AntigHigh CourtYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 732SingaporeDistinguished on the basis that it did not involve circumstances where there were competing dispute resolution clauses in multiple agreements.
Dalian Hualiang Enterprise Group Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Asia Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 636SingaporeDistinguished on the basis that it did not involve circumstances where there were competing dispute resolution clauses in multiple agreements.
Gulf Canada Resources Ltd v Avochem International LtdN/AYes66 BCLR (2d) 114CanadaDistinguished on the basis that it did not involve circumstances where there were competing dispute resolution clauses in multiple agreements.
Transocean Offshore International Venture Ltd v Burgundy Global Exploration CorpHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 821SingaporeCited approvingly in PT Thiess Contractors Indonesia v PT Kaltim Prima Coal and another. The nature of the claim and the particular agreement out of which the claim arose ought to be considered.
PT Thiess Contractors Indonesia v PT Kaltim Prima Coal and anotherHigh Court of JusticeYes[2011] EWHC 1842 (Comm)England and WalesCited Transocean Offshore International Venture Ltd v Burgundy Global Exploration Corp approvingly. The court must consider the substance of the controversy as it appears from the circumstances in evidence and not only on the particular terms in which the claim in court has been formulated.
UBS AG v HSH Nordbank AGCourt of AppealYes[2009] EWCA Civ 585England and WalesWhere there are numerous jurisdiction agreements which may overlap, it is the jurisdiction clauses in the agreements which are at the commercial centre of the transaction that the parties must have intended to apply.
Sebastian Holdings Inc v Deutsche Bank AGCourt of AppealYes[2010] EWCA Civ 998England and WalesThe essential task of the court is to construe the jurisdiction agreement in the light of the transaction as a whole and to determine the objective intention of the parties as revealed by the agreements.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Arbitration Agreement
  • ISDA Master Agreement
  • Account Agreement Pack
  • Non-Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Private Banking Relationship
  • BRL/JPY Currency Option Trades

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • stay of proceedings
  • contract law
  • financial services
  • fraudulent misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Financial Services