Abdul Rashid v Hii Yii Ann: Forum Non Conveniens & Witness Compellability

In Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v Hii Yii Ann, the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens. The plaintiff, Abdul Rashid, sued the defendant, Hii Yii Ann, for failing to pay a sum of USD 15 million under a settlement agreement. The defendant argued that Malaysia was a more appropriate forum. The court dismissed the defendant's application, holding that the defendant failed to prove that Malaysia was clearly more appropriate than Singapore, especially considering a key witness was willing to testify in Singapore.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendant's application to stay proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on forum non conveniens, addressing witness compellability and relevance of merits in stay applications. Defendant's stay application dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hii Yii AnnDefendantIndividualApplication to stay proceedingsLost
Abdul Rashid bin Abdul ManafPlaintiffIndividualApplication to stay proceedings dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Zhuang WenXiongAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tham Feei SyDrew & Napier LLC
Haridas Vasantha DeviSamuel Seow Law Corporation
Hri Kumar SCDrew & Napier LLC
Charmaine ChewDrew & Napier LLC
Shaun Marc LiewSamuel Seow Law Corporation
Francis Xavier SCRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ang Tze PhernRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff and defendant are Malaysian citizens.
  2. The plaintiff invested in two of the defendant’s timber concessions in Papua New Guinea.
  3. The parties entered into a settlement agreement where the defendant was to pay the plaintiff USD 15 million.
  4. The settlement agreement was signed in Singapore.
  5. The defendant claimed there was an oral condition to the settlement agreement, which the plaintiff denied.
  6. A key witness, Alvin John, is a Malaysian lawyer who drafted the agreements.
  7. The settlement agreement was to be governed by English law.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v Hii Yii Ann, Suit No 930 of 2015 (Summons No 5058 of 2015), [2016] SGHCR 1

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties entered into a settlement agreement.
Initial deadline for payment under settlement agreement.
Plaintiff filed suit.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant had not shown that Malaysia was clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Singapore and dismissed the application to stay proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] AC 460
      • [2011] 1 SLR 391
  2. Compellability of Witnesses
    • Outcome: The court held that compellability is ordinarily not a significant factor if a witness is proven to be willing to testify outside of their place of residence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 1 SLR 391
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377
  3. Relevance of Merits in Forum Non Conveniens Application
    • Outcome: The court held that the merits are not relevant to a forum non conveniens application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 3 SLR(R) 719

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Timber

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yeoh Poh San & Anor v Won Siok WanHigh CourtYes[2002] SGHC 196SingaporeCited for the principle that forum non conveniens is determined with respect to the particular issues that are likely to be in dispute.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460England and WalesCited as the leading case for determining forum non conveniens.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the principles of forum non conveniens and the distinction between convenience and compellability of witnesses.
Orchard Capital I Ltd v Ravindra Kumar JhunjhunwalaHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 519SingaporeCited to distinguish from cases where the defendant seeks a stay on the ground that the contractually designated non-exclusive forum was more appropriate.
The “Rainbow Joy”Court of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 719SingaporeCited for the holding that a court should not be required to go into the merits when hearing a forum non conveniens application.
The “Jian He”High CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 432SingaporeCited for the principle that showing that the defendant has no defence would constitute exceptional circumstances in a stay application premised on an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Bank of Credit & Commerce Hong Kong Ltd (in liquidation) v Sonali BankNot AvailableYes[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 227England and WalesCited for the obiter dicta that it would be wholly inappropriate to grant a stay on the grounds of forum non conveniens because the defendant had not shown that Bangladesh is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the English forum, and because Sonali had no defence.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated v RaffaNot AvailableYes[2001] CP Rep 44England and WalesCited for the obiter dicta that it may well be appropriate to hear a summary judgment application prior to a stay application, because foreign proceedings may be superseded by proceedings to enforce that (summary) judgment.
Speed Investments Ltd and another v Formula One Holdings Ltd and othersNot AvailableYes[2005] 1 WLR 1233England and WalesCited for the principle that the court should not go into the details or the nature of the claim in determining the challenge to jurisdiction.
Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 382SingaporeCited for the principle that when a stay application is afoot, the defendant cannot be compelled to file his defence.
Aoki Corp v Lippoland (Singapore) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 314SingaporeCited to note that under the old O 14, stay applications were routinely heard together with summary judgment applications.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the significance of compellability of witnesses and the presumption of similarity.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited Rickshaw Investments with approval, but on the facts compellability was not a factor.
UBS AG v Telesto Investments Ltd and others and another matterHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 503SingaporeCited for the importance of assessing the credibility of a material witness and that compellability was a crucial factor.
Bunge SA and another v Indian BankHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 330SingaporeCited for the principle that the Indian courts would have had the jurisdiction to join Varun as a necessary and proper party.
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek LianHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 381SingaporeCited for the principle that the easy and ready availability of video link with unprecedented clarity and life-like verisimilitude warrants a re-assessment of the need for physical presence.
Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 137SingaporeCited to show that self-serving hearsay evidence should be disregarded.
SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] SGCA 71SingaporeCited for the principle that he who asserts must prove.
Gulf Oil Corporation v GilbertSupreme CourtYes330 US 501 (1947)United StatesCited for the factors to be considered in forum non conveniens applications and sharply distinguished between “availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 12 Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court
Order 20 Rule 12 of the Rules of Court
Order 20 Rule 6 of the Rules of Court
Order 38 Rule 18 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Compellability
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Condition
  • Entire Agreement Clause
  • Spiliada
  • Witness
  • Jurisdiction

15.2 Keywords

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Witness Compellability
  • Singapore High Court
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Conflict of Laws

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Natural forum90
Jurisdiction80
Private International Law75
Civil Procedure60
Contract Law50

16. Subjects

  • Conflict of Laws
  • Civil Procedure
  • Forum Non Conveniens