Hilton v Sun Travels: Anti-Suit Injunction for Breach of Arbitration Agreement

In Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Hilton for a permanent anti-suit injunction to restrain Sun Travels from continuing proceedings in the Maldives, which Hilton argued breached an arbitration agreement. The dispute arose from a hotel management contract, and after arbitration proceedings in Singapore resulted in awards favoring Hilton, Sun Travels commenced a civil action in the Maldives on the same issues. The court granted a limited injunction, restraining Sun Travels from relying on the Maldivian judgment, declaring the arbitration awards final and binding, and stating that the Maldivian action breached the arbitration agreement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Limited permanent anti-suit injunction granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court grants anti-suit injunction, restraining Sun Travels from relying on a Maldivian judgment that breached an arbitration agreement with Hilton.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdPlaintiffCorporationLimited permanent anti-suit injunction grantedPartial
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt LtdDefendantCorporationDefendant is hereby permanently restrained from taking any steps in reliance on the ruling in the March JudgmentLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
David Isidore TanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Toby Landau QCRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Paul TanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Alessa PangRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Jenny TsinWong Partnership LLP
Koh Jia WenWong Partnership LLP
Andre Maniam SCWong Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Hilton and Sun Travels entered into a hotel management agreement in 2009.
  2. Disputes arose regarding the hotel's performance under Hilton's management.
  3. Hilton terminated the agreement in April 2013, which Sun Travels accepted as wrongful repudiation.
  4. Hilton commenced arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the ICC Rules.
  5. The arbitral tribunal issued awards in favor of Hilton.
  6. Sun Travels commenced a civil action in the Maldives on the same issues as the arbitration.
  7. The Maldivian court ruled in favor of Sun Travels, contradicting the arbitration awards.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd, Originating Summons No 845 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 56

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Hotel management contract signed
Hilton terminated the Management Agreement
Sun Travels accepted Hilton’s termination as wrongful repudiation
Hilton commenced arbitration proceedings
ICC Court fixed Singapore as the place of Arbitration
Terms of Reference in ICC Arbitration Case Number 19482/TO signed
Oral hearings held before the arbitral tribunal
Partial Award issued
Final Award issued
Hilton commenced enforcement proceedings in the Maldivian Civil Court
Sun Travels commenced civil action in the Maldivian High Court
Maldivian Civil Court delivered judgment in favor of Sun Travels
Hilton appealed against the March Judgment
Hilton re-commenced its enforcement proceedings in the Maldivian Civil Court
Sun Travels made arguments to refuse enforcement
Hilton filed a response
Maldivian Civil Court held that Hilton could not enforce the Awards
Hilton applied to the Singapore court for a permanent anti-suit injunction
Hearing before the appellate court
Hearing before the appellate court
Orders made by the court
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Arbitration Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant's Maldivian action was a breach of the arbitration agreement, specifically the negative obligation not to set aside or challenge the Awards other than through setting aside procedures in accordance with the law of the seat court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Commencement of court proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction despite an arbitration agreement
      • Attempt to circumvent an arbitral award
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] UKSC 35
      • [2007] EWCA Civ 1282
  2. Jurisdiction of the Court
    • Outcome: The court found that it had jurisdiction over the defendant for the purposes of granting the permanent anti-suit injunction and declaratory relief, as the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts by agreeing to Singapore as the seat of the Arbitration.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Service out of jurisdiction
      • Submission to jurisdiction
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 4 SLR 625
  3. Power to Grant Anti-Suit Injunction
    • Outcome: The court found that it had the power to grant a permanent anti-suit injunction, stemming from s 18(2) read with paragraph 14 of the First Schedule of the SCJA, and that this power was not curtailed by Art 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Source of the court's power to grant an injunction
      • Effect of Article 5 of the Model Law
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 1 SLR 521

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Permanent Anti-Suit Injunction
  2. Declaratory Orders

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLPUK Supreme CourtYes[2013] UKSC 35United KingdomCited for the proposition that an agreement to arbitrate has positive and negative obligations, including the negative obligation not to seek relief in any other forum.
C v DEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2007] EWCA Civ 1282United KingdomCited for the principle that the choice of the seat of arbitration implies an agreement as to the forum for remedies seeking to attack the award.
Shashoua v SharmaHigh Court of JusticeYes[2009] EWHC 957United KingdomCited for the principle that the grant of an anti-suit injunction depends on the seat of the arbitration rather than the governing law of the arbitration agreement.
West Tankers Inc v Ras Ruinione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA (The “Front Comor”)UK House of LordsYes[2007] UKHL 4United KingdomCited for the principle that the exercise of jurisdiction to restrain foreign court proceedings is an important weapon in the hands of a court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration.
Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 625SingaporeCited regarding the requirements for granting an anti-suit injunction over a foreign defendant and the methods of service under the Rules of Court.
Siemens AG v Holdrich Investment LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 1007SingaporeCited for the conditions under which the court will grant leave for service out of jurisdiction.
The “Vasily Golovnin”Singapore High CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited for the principle that the plaintiff has a duty of full and frank disclosure of all material facts in its application for the order.
R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AGSingapore High CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 166SingaporeCited regarding the court's power to grant a permanent anti-suit injunction in aid of domestic international arbitration proceedings. Disagreed with the analysis in R1 International (HC) on s 4(10) of the CLA being the source of the court’s power to grant a permanent anti-suit injunction.
R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AGSingapore Court of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 521SingaporeCited as conclusive as to the court’s power to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SASingapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 629SingaporeCited for the interpretation of s 4(10) of the CLA and the court's power to issue a permanent anti-suit injunction.
BC Andaman Co Ltd and others v Xie Ning Yun and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2017] SGHC 64SingaporeCited for the principle that a court would readily grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement.
Maldives Airports Co Ltd and another v CMR Male International Airport Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for affirming The Angelic Grace and noting that the right to have disputes resolved pursuant to an arbitration agreement could be rightfully protected by an anti-suit injunction.
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace)England and Wales Court of AppealYes[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87United KingdomCited for the principle that an injunction can be granted to restrain foreign proceedings on the ground that the defendant has promised not to bring them.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v Atv Projects India Ltd and AnrDelhi High CourtYesLNIND 2004 DEL 486IndiaCited for the principle that Art 5 does not prevent the court from issuing a permanent anti-suit injunction as the grant of a permanent injunction or other remedy is not a matter governed by the Model Law.
Emmott v Michael Wilson & PartnersHigh Court of JusticeYes[2016] EWHC 3010 (Comm)United KingdomCited for the principle that court proceedings initiated in a foreign jurisdiction in relation to issues that were resolved by arbitral awards were a collateral attack on the arbitration award, vexatious conduct, and an abuse of process.
Ecobank Transnational Incorporated v TanohEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2015] EWCA Civ 1309United KingdomCited for the principle that comity between courts requires a respect for the operations of different legal systems, including the desire to avoid wasted time and costs that arise from inconsistent judgments or proceedings left unpursued.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 18(2) read with the First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 16 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 11 r 1 of the RulesSingapore
O 11 r 1(r) of the RulesSingapore
O 11 r 1(d)(iv) of the RulesSingapore
O 11 r 4(2)(c) of the RulesSingapore
O 11 r 4(4) of the RulesSingapore
O 11 r 3(1) read with r 3(2) of the RulesSingapore
O 62 r 4 of the RulesSingapore
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 12A(2) read with s 12(1)(i) of the IAASingapore
s 3 of the IAASingapore
s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (UK)United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Anti-Suit Injunction
  • Arbitration Agreement
  • Seat of Arbitration
  • Maldivian Action
  • March Judgment
  • Final Award
  • Negative Obligation
  • Abuse of Process

15.2 Keywords

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Arbitration agreement
  • Singapore
  • Maldives
  • Breach of contract
  • International arbitration

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Arbitration95
Anti-suit injunction80
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards70
Breach of Contract70
Injunctions60
Contract Law60
International Commercial Arbitration60
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards60
Hotel Management Agreement60
Commercial Disputes50
Jurisdiction50
International Arbitration Act50
Submission to Jurisdiction40
Abuse of Process40
Misrepresentation40
Estoppel30
Summary Judgement30
Forum30
Mistake20
Indemnity costs20

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions