Recovery Vehicle 1 v Industries Chimiques: Service Out of Jurisdiction & Forum Conveniens

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd (RV1) and Industries Chimiques Du Senegal (ICS) regarding the service of a writ outside of Singapore. RV1, assignee of debts from Affert Resources Pte Ltd, sued ICS for breach of contract related to unpaid sulphur contracts. The court addressed whether Singapore had jurisdiction, whether the claim had merit, and whether Singapore was the appropriate forum. The Court of Appeal dismissed RV1's appeal, finding that the contracts were governed by Senegalese law, the breach did not occur in Singapore, and the claim was time-barred under Senegalese law. The court allowed ICS's appeal, concluding that Senegal was the more appropriate forum.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal in Civil Appeal No 32 allowed; Appeal in Civil Appeal No 31 dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses service out of jurisdiction and forum conveniens in a contract dispute between Recovery Vehicle 1 and Industries Chimiques.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Industries Chimiques du SenegalRespondent, AppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte LtdAppellant, RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Steven ChongJudge of AppealYes
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeNo

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. RV1, a Singapore company, was assigned debts owed by ICS to Affert Resources Pte Ltd.
  2. Affert, also a Singapore company, engaged in manufacturing, trading, and chartering businesses.
  3. ICS is a Senegal-incorporated company involved in producing and exporting phosphate fertilizer products.
  4. The dispute arose from six unpaid contracts between Affert and ICS for the purchase of sulphur.
  5. ICS claimed Affert waived the debt as part of an acquisition of Senfer's stake in ICS by Indorama.
  6. RV1 argued the waiver was a sham and lacked consideration.
  7. ICS commenced proceedings in Senegal, obtaining a default judgment based on the waiver defense.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal and another appeal and another matter, , [2020] SGCA 107
  2. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal, Civil Appeal No 31 of 2020, Civil Appeal No 31 of 2020
  3. Industries Chimiques Du Senegal v Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 32 of 2020, Civil Appeal No 32 of 2020
  4. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal, Summons No 84 of 2020, Summons No 84 of 2020
  5. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal, Suit No 724 of 2018, Suit No 724 of 2018
  6. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal, Registrar’s Appeal No 179 of 2019, Registrar’s Appeal No 179 of 2019
  7. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal, Summons No 86 of 2020, Summons No 86 of 2020
  8. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal, , [2019] SGHC 289
  9. Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd, Summons No 4699 of 2018, Summons No 4699 of 2018
  10. Industries Chimiques Du Senegal, Summons No 383 of 2019, Summons No 383 of 2019
  11. The Liquidators, Originating Summons No 544 of 2019, Originating Summons No 544 of 2019
  12. Solvadis, Companies Winding Up No 17 of 2017, Companies Winding Up No 17 of 2017
  13. Transfert FZCO v Affert Resources Pte Ltd, Suit No 1072 of 2014, Suit No 1072 of 2014

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First Sulphur Contract between Affert and ICS
Last Sulphur Contract between Affert and ICS
Email sent by Mr Syam to Mr Jindal regarding ICS dues
Email sent by Mr Jindal to Mr Syam acknowledging settlement of ICS dues
Email sent by Mr Jindal to Mr Anil Jain forwarding emails regarding ICS dues
Letter sent by Mr Syam to Mr Jindal confirming no claim on ICS
Deed of Termination signed by Affert, ICS, and Transfert
Affert placed in creditor’s voluntary winding-up
FKT sent ICS a letter demanding payment of the ICS Debt
ICS’s Senegalese lawyers responded to FKT denying any sum owed to Affert
FKT received ICS's Senegalese lawyers' letter
Affert compulsorily wound up by Solvadis
The Liquidators sent a letter of demand to ICS to recover the ICS Debt
The Liquidators filed a writ of summons seeking repayment of sums due under the Sulphur Contracts
Deed of Assignment of Receivable assigning the ICS Debt to RV1
Affert assigned the ICS Debt to RV1
RV1 filed an amended writ of summons
RV1 filed an ex parte application for leave to serve the Amended Writ on ICS in Senegal
ICS’s Senegalese lawyers sent a letter to RV1 enclosing documents related to the Waiver
Leave granted to RV1 to serve the Amended Writ out of jurisdiction
ICS applied to the Dakar Commercial Court for a Declaration to Extinguish Debt
ICS took out Summons No 383 of 2019 to set aside RV1’s Amended Writ and/or the Leave Order
Dakar Commercial Court gave default judgment in favor of ICS
Finalised default judgment released by Dakar Commercial Court
The Liquidators filed an application to set aside the Waiver of the ICS Debt
Summons served on ICS in Senegal
RV1 appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s decision
OS 544 was stayed pending the determination of these proceedings
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Service Out of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court found that RV1 failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement under O 11 r 1(e).
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with duty of full and frank disclosure
      • Satisfaction of jurisdictional gateway
  2. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court found that Senegal was the forum conveniens to try the dispute.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Availability of alternative forum
      • Connection to Singapore
  3. Governing Law of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the Sulphur Contracts were governed by Senegalese law.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Express choice of law
      • Inferred intention of parties
      • Closest and most real connection
  4. Limitation Period
    • Outcome: The court found that RV1's claim was time-barred under Senegalese law and that the undue hardship exception did not apply.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Applicable limitation period under Senegalese law
      • Exceptions to limitation period
      • Undue hardship

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Repayment of sums due under the Sulphur Contracts

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Commodities Trading
  • Fertilizer Production

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology IncHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited for the three-stage test in determining the governing law of a contract.
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 500SingaporeCited for the three requirements for service out of jurisdiction.
Oro Negro Drilling Pte Ltd and others v Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro SAPI de CV and others and another appeal (Jesus Angel Guerra Mendez, non-party)High CourtYes[2020] 1 SLR 226SingaporeCited for the three requirements for service out of jurisdiction.
MAN Diesel & Turbo SE and another v IM Skaugen SE and anotherHigh CourtYes[2020] 1 SLR 327SingaporeCited for the three requirements for service out of jurisdiction.
Mendelson-Zeller Co Inc v T&C Providores Pty LtdNew South Wales Supreme CourtYes[1981] 1 NSWLR 366AustraliaCited regarding the weight to be given to various factors in determining governing law.
Habib Bank Ltd v Central Bank of Sudan (formerly known as Bank of Sudan)English High CourtYes[2007] 1 WLR 470England and WalesCited regarding the contemplated place of performance.
Bell & Co v Antwerp, London and Brazil LineEnglish Court of AppealYes[1891] 1 QB 103England and WalesCited regarding the requirement for performance within jurisdiction for service out of jurisdiction.
Cuban Atlantic Sugar Sales Corporation v Compania De Vapores San Elefterio LimitadaEnglish Court of AppealYes[1960] 1 QB 187England and WalesCited regarding the requirement for performance within jurisdiction for service out of jurisdiction.
Daad Sharab v HRH Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Bin Abdal-Aziz Al-SaudEnglish Court of AppealYes[2009] EWCA Civ 353England and WalesCited regarding the requirement for performance within jurisdiction for service out of jurisdiction.
Komaia Deccof and Co SA and others v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyik Dan Gas Bumi NegaraHong Kong Court of AppealYes[1982] HKCA 253Hong KongCited regarding the place of payment in the absence of an express or implied term.
The EiderEnglish High CourtYes[1893] Probate 119England and WalesCited regarding the general rule that the debtor must pay the creditor at the creditor’s place of business.
BWG v BWFHigh CourtYes[2020] 1 SLR 1296SingaporeCited regarding the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
Lipkin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 962SingaporeCited regarding the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and anotherHigh CourtYes[2020] SGCA 68SingaporeCited regarding the abuse of the appeal process.
Zyfas Medical Co (Sued as a firm) v Millennium Pharmaceuticals, IncHigh CourtYes[2020] SGCA 84SingaporeCited regarding the abuse of the appeal process.
Bryanston Finance Ltd v De Vries (No. 2)English High CourtYes[1976] 1 Ch 63England and WalesCited regarding concessions made during interlocutory applications.
Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] 2 SLR 1271SingaporeCited regarding the time-bar factor for the purposes of forum non conveniens.
Ladd v MarshallEnglish High CourtYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited regarding the requirements for adducing fresh evidence on appeal.
AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co)High CourtYes[2019] 2 SLR 341SingaporeCited regarding the requirements for adducing fresh evidence on appeal.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983SingaporeCited regarding the evaluation of expert evidence.
Liberian Shipping Corporation “Pegasus” v A King & Sons LtdEnglish High CourtYes[1967] 2 QB 86England and WalesCited regarding the meaning of “undue hardship”.
Bank St Petersburg OJSC and another v Arkhangelsky and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[2014] EWCA 593England and WalesCited regarding the meaning of “undue hardship”.
Alseran and others v Ministry of DefenceEnglish High CourtYes[2017] EWHC 3289 (QB)England and WalesCited regarding the meaning of “undue hardship”.
Harley and others v Smith and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[2010] EWCA Civ 78England and WalesCited regarding the meaning of “undue hardship”.
Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and othersEnglish High CourtYes[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 589England and WalesCited regarding the meaning of “undue hardship”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Foreign Limitation Periods Act (Cap 111A, 2013 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Forum conveniens
  • Governing law
  • Time bar
  • Waiver Defence
  • Sulphur Contracts
  • ICS Debt
  • CFR contracts
  • Undue hardship
  • Abuse of process

15.2 Keywords

  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Forum conveniens
  • Contract law
  • Singapore
  • Senegal
  • Time bar
  • Breach of contract

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws