William Jacks v Nelson Honey: Long-Arm Jurisdiction & Forum Non Conveniens
In William Jacks & Company (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Nelson Honey & Marketing (NZ) Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over manuka honey. William Jacks, a Singapore company, sued Nelson Honey, a New Zealand company, for non-conformity of goods. Nelson Honey applied to set aside service ex juris or stay proceedings based on forum non conveniens. The court dismissed Nelson Honey's summons, conditional on William Jacks abandoning proceedings in New Zealand if its attempts to dismiss or stay proceedings there fail. The key issues revolved around long-arm jurisdiction, the applicability of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, and whether Singapore was the more appropriate forum.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Summons dismissed on the condition that William Jacks abandons proceedings in New Zealand if it fails to dismiss or stay proceedings there.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses long-arm jurisdiction in a dispute between William Jacks and Nelson Honey, focusing on forum non conveniens.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| William Jacks & Company (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Summons dismissed conditionally | Partial | Chandra Mohan Rethnam, Jonathan Cheong, Tan Ruo Yu |
| Nelson Honey & Marketing (NZ) Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Summons dismissed conditionally | Partial | Gerald Yee, Prakash Nair, Yoga Vyjayanthimala |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Zhuang WenXiong | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chandra Mohan Rethnam | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Jonathan Cheong | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Tan Ruo Yu | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Gerald Yee | Clasis LLC |
| Prakash Nair | Clasis LLC |
| Yoga Vyjayanthimala | Clasis LLC |
4. Facts
- William Jacks bought manuka honey from Nelson Honey for NZ$206,300.
- The honey was to be delivered from New Zealand to Shanghai, China in two shipments.
- Nelson Honey commenced a suit against William Jacks in New Zealand for the unpaid purchase price.
- William Jacks commenced a suit against Nelson Honey in Singapore for non-conformity of the honey.
- William Jacks argued that the parties had agreed to an exclusive distributorship agreement with a Singapore jurisdiction clause.
- The draft distributorship agreement was never signed.
- The honey supplied bore William Jack’s own label and was shipped to China, inconsistent with the draft distributorship agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- William Jacks & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Nelson Honey & Marketing (NZ) Ltd, Suit No 85 of 2015 (Summons No 2064 of 2015), [2015] SGHCR 21
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Purchase order dated | |
| Nelson Honey commenced suit against William Jacks in New Zealand | |
| William Jacks commenced Suit No 85 of 2015 against Nelson Honey | |
| William Jacks granted leave to serve writ and statement of claim | |
| Service effected | |
| Nelson Honey filed Summons No 2064 of 2015 | |
| William Jacks' application dismissed in New Zealand | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Long-Arm Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that William Jacks had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand High Court. The court also found that an essential step was taken in Singapore.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Essential step taken in jurisdiction
- Submission to foreign jurisdiction
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court concluded that Singapore is the more appropriate forum if and only if proceedings in New Zealand do not progress beyond the jurisdictional stage.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Location of witnesses
- Location of evidence
- Applicable law
- Parallel proceedings
- Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that an issue estoppel does not arise because the New Zealand High Court is not a court of competent jurisdiction and there is no identity of subject matter.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Competent jurisdiction
- Final and conclusive judgment
- Identity of subject matter
- Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause
- Outcome: The court found that William Jacks failed to show a good arguable case that the parties had agreed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Incorporation of clause
- Choice of law
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for breach of contract
- Compensation for defective goods
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Non-conformity of goods
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- International Trade Disputes
11. Industries
- Food and Beverage
- Health and Wellness
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holland and another v Leslie | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1894] 2 QB 450 | England and Wales | Cited regarding amendment of statement of claim for writs served out of jurisdiction. |
| Parker v Schuller | N/A | No | (1901) 17 TLR 299 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the impermissibility of setting up a distinct cause of action when an initial material representation turns out to be unfounded. |
| In re Jogia (A Bankrupt) | N/A | No | [1988] 1 WLR 484 | England and Wales | Cited as a case following Parker v Schuller. |
| Metall und Roshstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc | N/A | No | [1990] 1 QB 391 | England and Wales | Cited as a case following Parker v Schuller. |
| Walton Insurance Limited v Deutsche Rock (UK) Reinsurance Company Limited and another | N/A | Yes | 1990 WL 754929 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the permissibility of substituting one reason for another under the same O 11 head of jurisdiction. |
| AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC | Court of Appeal | No | [2012] 1 WLR 920 | England and Wales | Cited for declining to extend Parker v Shuller where the claimant relied on the same cause of action. |
| NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina | Supreme Court | Yes | [2011] 2 AC 495 | England and Wales | Cited for overruling Parker v Schuller and stating that procedural rules should serve the rule of law. |
| Transpac Capital Pte Ltd v Lam Soon (Thailand) Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 454 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a court should be chary of leaving a party no choice but to start over. |
| ISC Technologies Ltd and another v James Howard Guerin and others | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 430 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court can receive evidence which was not before the Master who heard the ex parte application. |
| PT Prima International Development v Kempinski Hotels SA and other appeals | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 98 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pleadings define and delineate the issues at stake. |
| Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte Ltd) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proportionality is an important factor in determining if an unless order is to be made. |
| The "Bunga Melati 5" | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of issue estoppel. |
| Adams v Cape Industries Plc | N/A | Yes | [1990] Ch 433 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the requirements for a company to be considered present in a jurisdiction. |
| Lucasfilm Ltd and others v Ainsworth and another | N/A | Yes | [2010] Ch 503 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a seller is not present in another country merely because it sells goods to a buyer in that country. |
| Pemberton v Hughes | N/A | Yes | [1899] 1 Ch 781 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that English Courts never investigate the propriety of the proceedings in the foreign Court. |
| Harris v Taylor | Court of Appeal | No | [1915] 2 KB 580 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that appearing to contest jurisdiction could constitute submission. |
| In re Dulles’ Settlement (No 2) | Court of Appeal | No | [1951] Ch 842 | England and Wales | Cited for distinguishing Harris v Taylor and the principle that one cannot voluntarily submit to jurisdiction when vigorously contesting it. |
| Henry v Geoprosco International Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | [1975] 3 WLR 620 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a conditional appearance to set aside service ex juris, if failed, becomes unconditional and is a voluntary submission. |
| WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka | N/A | No | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1088 | Singapore | Considered Harris v Taylor, Re Dulles, and Henry v Geoprosco but did not come to a determinative conclusion. |
| Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a challenge to service ex juris coupled with a fall-back application to stay does not constitute submission. |
| Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co v Fay | N/A | Yes | (1988) 165 CLR 197 | Australia | Cited for the principle that there is no system other than the municipal law to which reference can be made for the purposes of answering the preliminary questions whether a contract has been made and its terms. |
| The “Heidberg” | N/A | Yes | [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 287 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the putative proper law applies to the question of whether an agreement has been concluded. |
| CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the putative proper law applies to the question of whether an agreement has been concluded. |
| Canada Trust Co and others v Stolzenberg | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 WLR 547 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that William Jacks must establish the exclusive jurisdiction clause on the standard of a good arguable case. |
| Lim Koon Park and another v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court should look at the entire course of negotiations to determine if a contract has been entered into. |
| Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Co | N/A | Yes | (1877) 2 App Cas 666 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a contract can be entered into through conduct. |
| Limit (No 3) Ltd v PDV Insurance Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 347 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that it is incumbent on a court to identify, with precision, the issues that will arise at trial. |
| Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] AC 460 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles of forum non conveniens. |
| Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 363 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements under Singapore law for the assumption of long-arm jurisdiction. |
| Voth v Manidra Flour Mills Proprietary Limited | N/A | No | (1988) 79 ALR 9 | Australia | Cited as an example of a different test for forum conveniens. |
| Wing Hung Printing Co Ltd v Satio Offshore Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 NZLR 754 | New Zealand | Cited as an example of the application of Spiliada principles in New Zealand. |
| Sydney Steel Corp v Canadian National Railway Co | N/A | No | (1998) 164 DLR (4th) 747 | Canada | Cited regarding whether issue estoppel applies when courts in different jurisdictions are applying a balancing test for determining their own exercise of jurisdiction. |
| Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1097 | Singapore | Cited regarding the doctrine of forum election and the weight to be given to parallel proceedings in the application of Spiliada principles. |
| Bradley Lomas Electrolok Ltd v Colt Ventilation East Asia Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for the assumption of long-arm jurisdiction. |
| GKN Centrax Gears Ltd v Matbro Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 555 | England and Wales | Cited regarding loss of profit from the loss of repeat orders. |
| Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 663 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance of site visits in cases of allegedly defective goods. |
| N/A | High Court of New Zealand | No | [2015] NZHC 1215 | New Zealand | New Zealand Judgment |
| Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner & Keeler Ltd. (No. 2) | N/A | Yes | [1967] 1 AC 853 | England and Wales | Cited for the need to examine the court’s judgment, pleadings and evidence to ascertain the precise issue decided. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Civil Procedure Rules (SI 1998 No 3132) (UK) |
| New Zealand High Court Rules (Schedule 2 to the Judicature Act 1908 (Act No 89 of 1908)) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act (Cap 283A, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c 27) | England and Wales |
| Judicature Act 1908 (Act No 89 of 1908) | New Zealand |
| Sale of Goods (United Nations Convention) Act 1994 (Act No 60 of 1994) | New Zealand |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Long-arm jurisdiction
- Forum non conveniens
- Exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Issue estoppel
- Service ex juris
- Manuka honey
- Distributorship agreement
- O 11
- Spiliada principles
- CISG
15.2 Keywords
- Long-arm jurisdiction
- Forum non conveniens
- Exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Manuka honey
- Singapore
- New Zealand
- Contract dispute
16. Subjects
- Jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure
- International Trade
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Conflict of Laws
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- International Trade Law
- Sale of Goods