PT Sandipala v STMicroelectronics: Anti-Suit Injunction for Vexatious, Duplicative Actions
In PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice George Wei, addressed the issue of costs related to anti-suit injunctions. The first and third defendants sought these injunctions against the plaintiff, PT Sandipala Arthaputra, due to the plaintiff commencing a fresh action in Jakarta while simultaneously pursuing a similar action in Singapore. The court found the plaintiff's conduct vexatious and oppressive, granting the final anti-suit injunction and ordering the plaintiff to pay costs to the first and third defendants on an indemnity basis.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Costs are to be paid by the plaintiff to the first and third defendants, and are to be agreed or taxed on an indemnity basis.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court granted an anti-suit injunction against PT Sandipala for pursuing duplicative actions in Singapore and Jakarta, deeming it vexatious and oppressive.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paulus Tannos | Other | Individual | |||
| Lina Rawung | Other | Individual | |||
| Catherine Tannos | Other | Individual | |||
| PT Sandipala Arthaputra | Plaintiff | Corporation | Costs to be paid on an indemnity basis | Lost | |
| Oxel Systems Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Vincent Pierre, Luc, Cousin | Other | Individual | |||
| STMICROELECTRONICS ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD | Defendant | Corporation | Costs awarded on an indemnity basis | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| George Wei | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff commenced the Singapore Action in 2012.
- The plaintiff commenced a fresh action in Jakarta in early 2015.
- The Jakarta action involved the third defendant and the parent company of the first defendant.
- The first and third defendants applied for an anti-suit injunction.
- An interim anti-suit injunction was granted on 4 August 2015.
- The court found the plaintiff's pursuit of two similar actions vexatious and oppressive.
- The plaintiff participated in a hearing in the Jakarta Action on 12 August 2015.
5. Formal Citations
- PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 542 of 2012 (Summonses Nos 3342 of 2015 and 4013 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 301
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff commenced the Singapore Action. | |
| Plaintiff commenced a fresh action in Jakarta. | |
| Interim Order granted. | |
| Plaintiff participated in a hearing in the Jakarta Action. | |
| Application for a final anti-suit injunction heard. | |
| Decision on Summons No 3342 delivered. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court granted the final anti-suit injunction, finding the plaintiff's pursuit of two similar actions in Singapore and Jakarta vexatious and oppressive.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Vexatious and oppressive conduct
- Duplicative proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [2013] SGHC 274
- [1989] 3 All ER 65
- [2011] 2 SLR 96
- Costs
- Outcome: The court awarded costs on an indemnity basis to the first and third defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Indemnity costs
- Standard costs
- Related Cases:
- [2013] SGHC 274
8. Remedies Sought
- Anti-Suit Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Chin Yew Joseph v Saxo Capital Markets Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 274 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden on a party seeking indemnity costs is a high one. |
| Australian Commercial Research and Development Ltd v ANZ McCaughan Merchant Bank Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1989] 3 All ER 65 | England | Cited to support the claim for indemnity costs where the plaintiff commenced two sets of proceedings relating to the same subject matter. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited as an example where an injunction was granted to restrain a party from proceeding with an action in another jurisdiction, and indemnity costs would have been granted but for the respondent's conduct. |
| Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff to argue against indemnity costs, but distinguished by the court as it involved only one action. |
| John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 428 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff to argue against indemnity costs, but distinguished by the court as it involved only one action. |
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
- Indemnity costs
- Vexatious
- Oppressive
- Duplicative proceedings
- Interim Order
- Final Order
15.2 Keywords
- Anti-suit injunction
- Singapore
- Jakarta
- Costs
- Indemnity
- Vexatious
- Oppressive
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Anti-suit injunction | 95 |
| Costs | 90 |
| Jurisdiction | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions