Raffles Education v. Prakash: Forum Non Conveniens, Conspiracy, Misrepresentation

In Raffles Education Corp Ltd and others v Shantanu Prakash and another, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the defendants' applications to stay Suit 709 of 2019 on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs, Raffles Education Corporation Limited, Raffles Education Investment (India) Pte Ltd, and Raffles Design International India Pvt Ltd, sued the defendants, Shantanu Prakash and Lui Yew Lee Dennis Paul, for conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act. The court found that Singapore was the more appropriate forum, considering the place of the torts, the location and compellability of witnesses, and other connecting factors. The defendants' applications were dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Defendants' stay applications dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses stay application in Raffles Education v. Prakash, finding Singapore a more appropriate forum for conspiracy and misrepresentation claims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Raffles Education Corporation LimitedPlaintiffCorporationStay application dismissedWon
Raffles Education Investment (India) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationStay application dismissedWon
Raffles Design International India Pvt LtdPlaintiffCorporationStay application dismissedWon
Shantanu PrakashDefendantIndividualStay application dismissedLost
Lui Yew Lee Dennis PaulDefendantIndividualStay application dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Audrey LimJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ho Yi JieWong Partnership LLP
Monica Chong Wan YeeWong Partnership LLP
Wendy LinWong Partnership LLP
Francis Xavier SCRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Derek OnRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Lim Yun HengKSCGP Juris LLP
P PadmanKSCGP Juris LLP

4. Facts

  1. P1 and Educomp Solutions entered into a joint venture agreement to establish higher education institutions in India.
  2. P2 and P3 entered into a share purchase agreement with Educomp Asia and Educomp Professional to purchase the latter’s stake in ERHEL.
  3. P2 and Edulearn executed a business advisory agreement.
  4. Plaintiffs claimed the defendants made false representations to induce them to enter into the SPA and BAA.
  5. Plaintiffs commenced Suit 709 against the Defendants for conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, and misrepresentation.
  6. Defendants applied to stay Suit 709 on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing India was the more appropriate forum.
  7. D1 is a Singapore permanent resident and an Antiguan national.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Raffles Education Corp Ltd and others v Shantanu Prakash and another, Suit No 709 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 83

6. Timeline

DateEvent
P1 and Educomp Solutions entered into a joint venture agreement
ERHEL and JRRES entered into a loan agreement
ERHEL incorporated MIDL
MIDL and JRRES entered into an agreement for MIDL to take over construction of Noida College
Noida College was completed
P2 and P3 entered into a share purchase agreement with Educomp Asia and Educomp Professional
P2 and Edulearn executed a business advisory agreement
P2 and P3 commenced arbitration in Singapore against Educomp Asia and Educomp Professional
Arbitral tribunal held in favor of P2 and P3 and awarded them damages
Noida College closed
Plaintiffs commenced various proceedings in India
Plaintiffs commenced various proceedings in India
Plaintiffs commenced Suit 709 against the Defendants
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum non conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that Singapore was the more appropriate forum and dismissed the defendants' stay applications.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 1 SLR 391
      • [1987] AC 460
      • [2017] 2 SLR 265
  2. Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court considered the place where the alleged conspiracies took place in determining the appropriate forum.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court considered the place where the alleged misrepresentations were made, received, and relied upon in determining the appropriate forum.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for conspiracy
  2. Damages for fraudulent misrepresentation
  3. Damages for misrepresentation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Conspiracy
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Misrepresentation under s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act

10. Practice Areas

  • International Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeApplied the Spiliada test for determining forum non conveniens.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460United KingdomSeminal decision on forum non conveniens, establishing the Spiliada test.
Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 265SingaporeClarified the application of the Spiliada analysis, emphasizing the quality of connecting factors.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullUnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeDiscussed the significance of the place of the tort as the natural forum.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 860SingaporeOutlined the key factors to consider in determining where the tort of conspiracy occurred.
Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and othersUnknownYes[2011] 4 SLR 580SingaporeAddressed the issue of ordinary residence and its relevance in determining the appropriate forum.
Good Earth Agricultural Co Ltd v Novus International Pte LtdUnknownYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 711SingaporeAddressed the issue of which witnesses are to be considered.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraUnknownYes[2019] 2 SLR 372SingaporeAddressed the issue of witness convenience and compellability.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543SingaporeAddressed the issue of witness evidence.
Mann Holdings Pte Ltd and another v Ung Yoke HongHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 112SingaporeAddressed the issue of witness compellability.
Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 137SingaporeAddressed the issue of witness compellability.
Man Diesel & Turbo SE and another v IM Skaugen SE and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 327SingaporeAddressed the issue of forum conveniens.
Abdul Rashid bin Abdul Manaf v Hii Yii AnnSingapore High CourtYes[2016] SGHCR 1SingaporeAddressed the issue of witness compellability.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum non conveniens
  • Joint venture agreement
  • Share purchase agreement
  • Business advisory agreement
  • Pre-SPA Representations
  • Pre-BAA Representations
  • Conspiracy
  • Fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Misrepresentation Act
  • ERHEL
  • JRRES
  • Noida College

15.2 Keywords

  • forum non conveniens
  • conspiracy
  • misrepresentation
  • Singapore
  • India
  • stay application
  • Raffles Education

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Conflict of Laws90
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means80
Fraud and Deceit70
Misrepresentation70
Contract Law50
Breach of Contract40
Arbitration30
Property Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Litigation
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Tort Law
  • Contract Law