Sun Travels v Hilton: Enforceability of Singapore Judgment in Maldives, Examination of Judgment Debtor
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd appealed against Assistant Registrar Lee's decision to allow Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd to ask questions about Sun Travels' assets in the Maldives during examination of judgment debtor proceedings. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the questions were permissible under Order 48 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court, regardless of whether the Singapore judgment was enforceable in the Maldives. The court found no inconsistency with comity, as the proceedings were for information gathering, not enforcement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd sought to disallow questions about its Maldivian assets in EJD proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no inconsistency with comity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Maniam Andre Francis, Tsin Jenny, Ho Wei Jie, Wang Chen Yan, Koh Jia Wen |
| Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Won | Toby Landau QC, Tan Beng Hwee Paul, Pang Yi Ching Alessa, David Isidore Tan Huang Loong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Maniam Andre Francis | WongPartnership LLP |
| Tsin Jenny | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ho Wei Jie | WongPartnership LLP |
| Wang Chen Yan | WongPartnership LLP |
| Koh Jia Wen | WongPartnership LLP |
| Toby Landau QC | Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Instructed Counsel) (Singapore Group Practice) |
| Tan Beng Hwee Paul | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Pang Yi Ching Alessa | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| David Isidore Tan Huang Loong | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- The respondent and appellant were parties to a hotel management contract in respect of a hotel located in the Maldives.
- A dispute arose between the parties on or around 30 April 2013.
- Arbitration proceedings were commenced in May 2013 pursuant to an arbitration clause in the Management Contract.
- The arbitration proceedings resulted in a partial award in favor of the respondent on 27 May 2015, followed by a final award on 17 August 2015.
- The respondent commenced attempts to enforce the Awards in Maldivian courts in December 2015.
- The appellant, on 17 October 2016, commenced separate proceedings in the Maldives against the respondent alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.
- These proceedings resulted in a judgment in favor of the appellant being handed down on 9 March 2017 holding that the Management Contract was void and unenforceable.
5. Formal Citations
- Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd, Originating Summons No 762 of 2017 (Registrar’s Appeal No 65 of 2019), [2019] SGHC 291
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dispute arose between the parties | |
| Arbitration proceedings commenced | |
| Partial award issued in favor of the respondent | |
| Final award issued | |
| Respondent commenced attempts to enforce the Awards in Maldivian courts | |
| Appellant commenced proceedings in the Maldives against the respondent | |
| Maldivian Judgment handed down in favor of the appellant | |
| Proper procedure for enforcement action determined by the High Court of the Maldives | |
| Maldivian courts declined to enforce the Awards | |
| Respondent applied for leave to enforce the Awards in Singapore | |
| Respondent made a separate application in Originating Summons No 845 of 2017 for injunctive and declaratory relief | |
| Singapore Judgment granted | |
| Court of Appeal set aside the anti-suit injunction, but upheld the declarations awarded | |
| Assistant Registrar Jacqueline Lee decided that questions falling in category (a) would not be allowed in so far as they did not pertain to assets owned by the appellant available to satisfy the Singapore Judgment | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Singapore Judgment in the Maldives
- Outcome: The court held that the questions could be asked as part of the EJD proceedings under O 48 r 1(1) of the ROC, regardless of whether the Singapore judgment was enforceable in the Maldives.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Examination of Judgment Debtor Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the EJD process under O 48 r 1 of the ROC is not constrained by the question whether the Singapore judgment sought to be enforced is in fact recognised in the overseas jurisdiction where the assets or judgment debtor are located.
- Category: Procedural
- Comity
- Outcome: The court held that comity was not threatened because the EJD proceedings only concerned the gathering of information, and did not by themselves constitute enforcement of the Singapore Judgment.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Tourism
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT Bakrie Investindo v Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1116 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that an EJD order can be obtained even where enforcement of the judgment has been stayed and that EJD proceedings do not involve execution, but rather are about information gathering. |
| Indian Overseas Bank v Sarabjit Singh | High Court | Yes | [1990] 3 MLJ xxxi | Singapore | The appellant relied on this case to argue that the onus lay on the respondent to show that the Singapore Judgment is enforceable in the Maldives. The court distinguished this case. |
| Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd and another v Tiny Tantono (representative of the estate of Lim Susanto, deceased) and another suit | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHCR 3 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of O 48 r 1 of the ROC, which is to aid the judgment creditor in obtaining information which may result in the actual enforcement of the judgment. |
| Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 732 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the anti-suit injunction, but uphold the declarations awarded. |
| Bloomsbury International Ltd v Nouvelle Foods (Hong Kong) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2005] 1 HKC 337 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that there must be some line beyond which a creditor examining under O 48 may not tread, but that line cannot be drawn with precision. |
| Ecobank Transnational Inc v Tanoh | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 WLR 223 | England and Wales | Cited in considering the interplay between delay and comity. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 48 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court |
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
- Examination of judgment debtor
- Enforcement of judgment
- Comity
- Maldivian Judgment
- Singapore Judgment
- Hotel Management Contract
15.2 Keywords
- examination of judgment debtor
- enforcement of foreign judgment
- comity
- arbitration award
- Singapore
- Maldives
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- International Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration Law
- Enforcement of Judgments