Rotary Engineering v Kioumji & Eslim: Forum Non Conveniens and Stay of Proceedings
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Rotary Engineering Limited, Roger Chia Kim Piow, and Chia Kim Hung against Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm and Yahya Lutfi Khader regarding a stay of proceedings. The court, with Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Judith Prakash JA presiding, allowed the appeal, finding Saudi Arabia to be the more appropriate forum for the dispute concerning breach of contract and conspiracy claims. The court ordered the proceedings be stayed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore Court of Appeal granted a stay of proceedings in favor of Saudi Arabia, finding it the more appropriate forum for a contract dispute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotary Engineering Limited | Appellant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Roger Chia Kim Piow | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Chia Kim Hung | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm | Respondent, Appellant | Partnership | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Yahya Lutfi Khader | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm (KEL) is a law firm established in Bahrain.
- Yahya Lutfi Khader (Yahya) is a client of KEL and a citizen of the United States.
- Rotary Engineering Limited (REL) is a Singaporean company with Saudi Arabian subsidiaries.
- KEL and REL concluded the Proxy Agreement under which KEL was to negotiate and settle REL’s claims against SATORP.
- The Proxy Agreement included an express choice of Saudi law.
- The plaintiffs claimed a breach of the Joint Venture Agreement, through failure to transfer 49% of the equity in RACL to the plaintiffs.
- Tommy lodged a complaint through his Saudi lawyers with the Governor’s Office, alleging that Yahya had forged Tommy’s signature on a certain document.
5. Formal Citations
- Rotary Engineering Ltd and others v Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm and another and another appeal and other matters, , [2017] SGCA 24
- Rotary Engineering Limited v Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm, Civil Appeal No 90 of 2016, Civil Appeal No 90 of 2016
- Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm v Rotary Engineering Limited, Civil Appeal No 167 of 2016, Civil Appeal No 167 of 2016
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Yahya met with Roger and Tommy in Saudi Arabia. | |
| Yahya travelled to Singapore with his brother, Ibrahim. | |
| Yahya and Ibrahim met with Tommy and Roger to discuss the possible joint venture. | |
| Tommy sent Yahya and Ibrahim an email informing them that REL had decided not to enter into a joint venture with them. | |
| The plaintiffs sued the defendants in the High Court of Singapore. | |
| Defendants applied to stay the proceedings. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered judgment, allowing the appeal and ordering a stay of proceedings. |
7. Legal Issues
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that Saudi Arabia was the more appropriate forum and ordered a stay of proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Governing law of contract
- Location of witnesses
- Compellability of witnesses
- Related Cases:
- [1987] 1 AC 460
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Transfer of Shares
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- International Litigation
- Forum Non Conveniens
11. Industries
- Engineering
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm and another v Rotary Engineering Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 218 | Singapore | Cited for the Judge’s decision not to grant a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens. |
| Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] 1 AC 460 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles of forum non conveniens. |
| L Capital Jones Ltd and another v Maniach Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 312 | Singapore | Cited regarding challenging aspects of a Judge's decision. |
| JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 391 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable approach for appellate intervention in a case involving the exercise of discretion. |
| Rofa Sport Management AG v DHL International (UK) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1989] 1 WLR 902 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a stay is suspensory only and conceptually distinct from a dismissal or discontinuance. |
| The Alexandros T | Supreme Court | Yes | [2013] UKSC 70 | United Kingdom | Cited for confirming the principle that a court granting a stay remains seised of the proceedings and may in principle lift the stay at a later date. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Stay of Proceedings
- Proxy Agreement
- Joint Venture Agreement
- Saudi Law
- RACL
- SATORP
15.2 Keywords
- forum non conveniens
- stay of proceedings
- contract law
- singapore
- saudi arabia
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Contract Law
- International Law