PT Selecta Bestama v Sin Huat Huat: Setting Aside Default Judgment and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause in Barge Construction Dispute
In PT Selecta Bestama v Sin Huat Huat Marine Transportation Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendant's application to set aside a default judgment and stay proceedings based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The plaintiff, PT Selecta Bestama, sued for breach of contract related to barge construction. The defendant, Sin Huat Huat Marine Transportation Pte Ltd, argued that the default judgment should be set aside due to triable issues and that proceedings should be stayed in favor of Batam courts, as per an exclusive jurisdiction agreement. The court set aside the default judgment on the condition that the defendant provide security but did not grant the stay, finding that the exclusive jurisdiction agreement was not yet enforceable due to a failure to attempt negotiations.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Default judgment set aside on condition that the Defendant pays $173,500 into court. No order made in relation to the stay application.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed setting aside a default judgment and a stay application based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a barge construction dispute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Selecta Bestama | Plaintiff | Corporation | Default judgment set aside on condition | Partial | |
| Sin Huat Huat Marine Transportation Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Default judgment set aside on condition | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Nicholas Poon | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff and Defendant discussed the construction of barges.
- The Plaintiff claimed an oral agreement was reached for two barges at $1.33m each.
- The Defendant claimed the agreement was for one barge at $1.33m with specific payment terms.
- The Plaintiff commenced construction despite the Defendant not paying the deposit.
- The Plaintiff sent invoices for a deposit and progress payment, which the Defendant ignored.
- The Defendant claimed it was misled into signing the contracts.
- The contracts contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause for the courts of Batam, Indonesia.
5. Formal Citations
- PT Selecta Bestama v Sin Huat Huat Marine Transportation Pte Ltd, Adm No 135 of 2014 (Summons No 1088 of 2015), [2015] SGHCR 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Meetings held to discuss barge construction. | |
| Plaintiff drafted and signed contracts. | |
| Meeting between parties where contracts were allegedly signed. | |
| Plaintiff tendered invoices to Defendant for deposit. | |
| Plaintiff tendered invoices to Defendant for progress payment. | |
| Adm No 135 of 2014 filed. | |
| Summons No 1088 of 2015 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside Default Judgment
- Outcome: The court set aside the default judgment on the condition that the defendant provide security.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Existence of triable issues
- Veracity of factual assertions
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907
- Enforceability of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
- Outcome: The court found that the exclusive jurisdiction agreement was not yet enforceable because negotiations had not been attempted.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of obligation to negotiate
- Satisfaction of preconditions
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 432
- Enforceability of Liquidated Damages Clause
- Outcome: The court found that the defence in relation to the liquidated damages claim was prima facie arguable under Indonesian law.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Penalty clause under Singapore law
- Penalty clause under Indonesian law
- Related Cases:
- (1993) 61 BLR 41
- [1915] AC 79
8. Remedies Sought
- Liquidated Damages
- Damages for Consequential Loss
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Marine Transportation
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Jian He | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 432 | Singapore | Cited for the 'strong cause' test regarding exclusive jurisdiction agreements. |
| Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907 | Singapore | Cited as the leading case on setting aside default judgments, establishing the 'triable issue' test. |
| Evans v Bartlam | House of Lords | Yes | [1937] AC 473 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of a 'triable issue' as having 'merits to [the defence] which the Court should pay heed'. |
| Habibullah Mohamed Yousuff v Indian Bank | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1999] SLR(R) 880 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the 'triable issue' test in the context of an Order 14 application. |
| Prosperous Credit Pte Ltd v Gen Hwa Franchise International Pte Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a mere assertion in an affidavit is insufficient to raise a triable issue. |
| Eng Mee Yong and others v V Letchumanan s/o Velayutham | Privy Council | Yes | [1980] 1 AC 331 | United Kingdom | Cited to describe evidence that was vague, self-contradictory, and implausible. |
| Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co, Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co, Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1915] AC 79 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the label given to damages payable under a liquidated damages clause is inconclusive. |
| Philips Hong Kong Limited v The Attorney General of Hong Kong | Privy Council | Yes | (1993) 61 BLR 41 | Hong Kong | Cited for the test of whether a liquidated damages provision is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. |
| Hong Leong Finance Ltd v Tan Gin Huay and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 755 | Singapore | Cited with approval of Philips Hong Kong Limited v The Attorney General of Hong Kong regarding liquidated damages. |
| Amoe Pte Ltd v Otto Marine Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 724 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that taking out a Notice to Produce does not necessarily waive objection to the court's jurisdiction. |
| International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 130 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction if a precondition to arbitration is not satisfied. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 13 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 24 Rule 10 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Barge Construction
- Default Judgment
- Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
- Liquidated Damages
- Oral Agreement
- Triable Issues
- Security for Judgment
15.2 Keywords
- barge construction
- default judgment
- exclusive jurisdiction
- contract dispute
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure