Sandipala v STMicroelectronics: Anti-Suit Injunction & Forum Dispute in E-KTP Card Project Litigation

In PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard applications related to an anti-suit injunction. STMicroelectronics sought to prevent PT Sandipala from pursuing a claim in Indonesia against STMicroelectronics NV and Vincent Pierre Luc, concerning the Indonesian Government’s E-KTP card production project. PT Sandipala applied to set aside the anti-suit injunction and sought compensation. The court granted the anti-suit injunction, ordering PT Sandipala to withdraw the Jakarta action against STMicroelectronics NV and Vincent Pierre Luc, and dismissed PT Sandipala's application to set aside the injunction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Prayer 1 of SUM 3342 granted; prayers sought in SUM 4013 dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court grants anti-suit injunction, restraining PT Sandipala from pursuing claims in Indonesia against STMicroelectronics related to the E-KTP project.

1.7 Decision Date

22 September 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
PT SANDIPALA ARTHAPUTRA	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application dismissed, Restrained from pursuing claim	Lost, Lost	Govintharasah s/o Ramanathan, Sarah Kuek Xin Xin
STMICROELECTRONICS ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD	Defendant, Applicant	Corporation	Anti-suit injunction granted	Won	Danny Ong, Yam Wern-Jhien, Eugene Ong
OXEL SYSTEMS PTE LTD	Defendant	Corporation	Anti-suit injunction granted	Won	Danny Ong, Yam Wern-Jhien, Eugene Ong
VINCENT PIERRE LUC, COUSIN	Defendant, Applicant	Individual	Anti-suit injunction granted	Won	Danny Ong, Yam Wern-Jhien, Eugene Ong
PAULUS TANNOS	Other	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
CATHERINE TANNOS	Other	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
LINA RAWUNG	Other	Individual	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
George Wei	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Govintharasah s/o Ramanathan	Gurbani & Co LLC
Sarah Kuek Xin Xin	Gurbani & Co LLC
Danny Ong	Rajah & Tann LLP
Yam Wern-Jhien	Rajah & Tann LLP
Eugene Ong	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

PT Sandipala Arthaputra, an Indonesian company, was part of a consortium for the Indonesian Government's E-KTP card production project.
The consortium contracted with STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (ST-AP) to supply electronic chips for tender evaluation.
The consortium was awarded the tender for approximately 172 million E-KTP cards to be produced in 2011 and 2012.
PT Sandipala was responsible for producing and personalizing 60% of the E-KTP cards.
PT Sandipala entered into a contract with Oxel Systems Pte Ltd for the supply of 100 million electronic chips.
PT Sandipala's share of work in the E-KTP project was reduced on two occasions.
PT Sandipala commenced an action in Singapore against ST-AP and Oxel.
PT Sandipala commenced an action in Jakarta against ST-NV, Mr. Cousin, and PNRI.

5. Formal Citations

PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 542 of 2012 (Summons Nos 3342 of 2015 and 4013 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 245

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-01-01	Ministry of Home Affairs of the Indonesian Government invited tenders for the production and supply of personalised electronic identification cards.
2011-01-01	PT Sandipala Arthaputra and four other Indonesian companies entered into a consortium agreement.
2011-11-09	PT Sandipala Arthaputra entered into a contract with Oxel Systems Pte Ltd for the supply of 100m electronic chips.
2011-12-19	The plaintiff’s share of work in the E-KTP Project was reduced from 103m to 60m (the First Reduction).
2011-12-22	First batches of electronic chips were delivered.
2012-02-09	Last of the first 5.8m chips were delivered.
2012-03-01	Paulus Tannos and Catherine Tannos have been residing in Singapore since around March 2012.
2012-06-28	The Singapore Action was commenced against ST-AP and Oxel in Singapore.
2013-07-10	The plaintiff’s share of work was reduced to 45m E-KTP cards (the Second Reduction).
2014-11-14	The plaintiff dropped its claim for the losses stemming from the First Reduction.
2015-01-06	A pre-trial conference was held in Singapore and the Singapore trial dates were fixed for 12 days in March/April 2016.
2015-02-13	The plaintiff commenced an action in Jakarta.
2015-05-15	Mr Cousin was added as the third defendant in the Singapore Action.
2015-08-04	An ex parte interim anti-suit injunction was applied for by ST-AP and Mr Cousin.
2015-08-28	Two summonses were heard together.
2015-09-04	Decision was delivered.
2015-09-23	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court granted the anti-suit injunction, restraining the plaintiff from continuing with the Jakarta Action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Procedural Irregularity
  - Material Non-Disclosure
  - Jurisdiction
  - Natural Forum
  - Vexatious and Oppressive Conduct
  - Bad Faith
- Related Cases:
  - [2002] CLC 1090
  - [2009] 2 WLR 669
  - [2011] 1 SLR 524
  - [1876 C. 8.] 1 Ch D 690
  - [1894] 2 Ch 541
  - [1967] 1 WLR 553
  - [2013] 4 SLR 1097
  - [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 428
  - [2002] 1 WLR 107
  - [2005] 1 AC 101
  - [2011] 2 SLR 196
  - [2006] 2 SLR(R) 381
  - [1996] 1 WLR 1483
  - [2000] 1 WLR 1545
  - [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 606
  - [1994] 2 SLR(R) 898
  - [2005] EWHC 456 (Comm)
  - [2015] AC 616
  - [1987] 1 AC 871
  - [1999] 2 SLR(R) 955
  - [1996] 1 SLR(R) 861
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786
Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court determined that Singapore was the natural forum for resolving the dispute.
- Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

Anti-suit injunction
Damages
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of contract
Misrepresentation
Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Technology
Government

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Glencore International AG v Exter Shipping Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] CLC 1090	England	Cited for the proposition that an application for a final anti-suit injunction did not necessarily have to be made by way of an originating process.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others (No 3)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 WLR 669	England	Observed that in contrast to single forum cases, the application for an anti-suit injunction in alternative forum cases will normally be made by an application in existing proceedings.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another	High Court	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 524	Singapore	Cited as an example in which a final anti-suit injunction was sought by way of summons in the existing proceedings.
Colebourne v Colebourne	High Court	Yes	[1876 C. 8.] 1 Ch D 690	England	Cited by the plaintiff in support of the contention that the claim for an anti-suit injunction must be indorsed on an originating process; distinguished by the court.
Carter v Fey	High Court	Yes	[1894] 2 Ch 541	England	Cited by the plaintiff for the proposition that where injunctive relief is not comprised in or incidental to the plaintiff’s cause of action, there is a procedural irregularity that cannot culminate in an order-in-terms; distinguished by the court.
Des Salles D’Epinox v Des Salles D’Epinox	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1967] 1 WLR 553	England	Cited by the plaintiff for the proposition that where injunctive relief is not comprised in or incidental to the plaintiff’s cause of action, there is a procedural irregularity that cannot culminate in an order-in-terms; distinguished by the court.
Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1097	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding parallel proceedings and forum election.
Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 148	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an anti-suit injunction may be granted where the ends of justice requires it.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428	Singapore	Identified factors that should be considered in determining whether an anti-suit injunction should be granted.
Turner v Grovit and others	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 1 WLR 107	England	Cited for the principle that the applicant for an anti-suit injunction must have a legitimate interest in making his application and the protection of that interest must make it necessary to make the order.
Turner v Grovit	European Court of Justice	Yes	[2005] 1 AC 101	European Union	Mentioned as having no application outside Convention countries.
Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 196	Singapore	Cited for the principle that between two available fora, the search is for the one with which the dispute has the most real and substantial connection.
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 381	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court has to take into account an entire multitude of factors in balancing the competing interests.
Mohammed v Bank of Kuwait and the Middle East KSC	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 WLR 1483	England	Cited for the proposition that the question of natural forum is to be determined at the date the application for the anti-suit injunction is heard.
Lubbe and others v Cape Plc and related appeals	House of Lords	Yes	[2000] 1 WLR 1545	England	Discussed the availability of a forum abroad at the date of the application for a stay, not the date of commencement of the suit.
Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Coral Oil Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 606	England	Discussed the circumstances in which a court which was not originally the natural forum for a particular claim can become the natural forum due to the progress of litigation before it on the claim in question, or on closely related claims.
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Djoni Widjaja	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 898	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party makes itself amenable to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts by seeking relief in a Singapore court.
CNA Insurance Co Ltd v Office Depot International (UK) Ltd	English High Court	Yes	[2005] EWHC 456 (Comm)	England	Cited for the principle that the conduct of the parties during the course of proceedings could make what might otherwise not have been an appropriate forum for a trial the only appropriate forum for a trial.
Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another	Supreme Court	Yes	[2015] AC 616	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that where a party to litigation in one country begins proceedings in another country on the same subject matter, his conduct may be regarded as a “vexatious harassing of the opposite party”.
Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak and another	House of Lords	Yes	[1987] 1 AC 871	England	Cited for the principle that there is no presumption that a multiplicity of proceedings is vexatious.
Yusen Air & Sea Service (S) Pte Ltd v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 955	Singapore	Discussed the factors to consider in determining whether there is a lis alibi pendens.
Kishinchand Tiloomal Bhojwani and another v Sunil Kishinchand Bhojwani and another	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 861	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in determining whether the pursuit of parallel proceedings in a foreign court was vexatious or oppressive, the court took into account the fact that the Singapore action was at an advanced stage.
Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah (trading as Sin Kwang Wah)	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 786	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a duty of full and frank disclosure of material facts governs ex parte applications.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anti-suit injunction
E-KTP card
Consortium
Electronic chips
Natural forum
Vexatious
Oppressive
Jakarta Action
Singapore Action
Forum non conveniens

15.2 Keywords

Anti-suit injunction
E-KTP
Singapore
Indonesia
STMicroelectronics
PT Sandipala Arthaputra
Forum non conveniens
Civil litigation

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
International Law
Commercial Dispute

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Conflict of Laws
Injunctions