VJZ v VKB: Anti-Suit Injunction & Estate Administration Dispute

VJZ and VKA, the joint administrators of an estate, applied for an anti-suit injunction against VKC in respect of legal proceedings she commenced against them in Indonesia. The High Court (Family Division) granted the injunction. The court found that VKC's actions were in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a settlement agreement and that Singapore was the natural forum for the dispute. The court also found that the Indonesian proceedings were vexatious and oppressive to the administrators.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Injunction granted against the second respondent, VKC, in respect of legal proceedings that she had commenced against the Administrators in Indonesia.

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 to restrain Indonesian proceedings against estate administrators, enforcing exclusive jurisdiction clause. Key issue: Contract Rights of Third Parties Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
VKCRespondentIndividualInjunction GrantedLost
VJZApplicantIndividualInjunction GrantedWon
VKAApplicantIndividualInjunction GrantedWon
VKBRespondentIndividualInjunction GrantedLost
VKDRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKERespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKFRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKGRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKHRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKIRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKJRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKKRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKLRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKMRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKNRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKORespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral
VKPRespondentCorporationNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Puay BoonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Devinder Kumar s/o Ram Sakal RaiACIES Law Corporation
Mikahil Rashid WeeACIES Law Corporation
Afzal AliAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ong Min-Tse PaulAllen & Gledhill LLP
Marissa Miralini KarunaAllen & Gledhill LLP
Aditi RaviTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. VJZ and VKA are the joint administrators of the Estate.
  2. VKC commenced legal proceedings against the Administrators in Indonesia.
  3. The Administrators sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain VKC from proceeding in Indonesia.
  4. The Indonesian Proceedings were based on the publication of notices by the Administrators.
  5. The notices were published in Indonesian newspapers.
  6. The respondents had entered into a Settlement Agreement in April 2018.
  7. The Settlement Agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Singapore courts.

5. Formal Citations

  1. VJZ and anothervVKB and others, Originating Summons Probate No 3 of 2019 (Summons No 96 of 2020), [2020] SGHCF 11

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Last will and testament dated
Deceased passed away
Grant of Letters of Administration issued to First Trustee
Application made for order compelling mediation
High Court made orders for mediation and stay of proceedings
Administrators appointed as joint and several administrators of the Estate
Administrators applied for the Grant in the High Court Family Division
Administrators appointment varied to joint administrators
Mediation commenced at the Singapore Mediation Centre
Mediation continued at the Singapore Mediation Centre
Settlement Agreement entered into
Grant was granted
Grant was issued
Administrators applied to court in OSP 3
Administrators published two notices in two newspapers in Indonesia
Court granted certain prayers as modified in HCF/ORC 253/2019
New settlement agreement entered into
First respondent applied in HCF/SUM 10/2020 for the Settlement Agreement to be replaced
Administrators served with letter from the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia
Administrators filed SUM 96
Court granted the injunction
Grounds of decision issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted the anti-suit injunction, restraining VKC from taking further steps in the Indonesian Proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of exclusive jurisdiction clause
      • Natural forum
      • Vexatious or oppressive proceedings
      • Injustice to defendant
  2. Third Party Rights
    • Outcome: The court held that the Administrators could enforce the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement as third-party beneficiaries under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Enforcement of contract term by third party
      • Intended vs. incidental beneficiary
  3. Natural Forum
    • Outcome: The court held that Singapore was the natural forum for the dispute, considering the shape of the litigation and the connection of events and transactions to Singapore.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Most real and substantial connection
      • Applicable law
      • Shape of litigation

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction
  2. Declaration
  3. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Tort

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Estate Administration
  • Probate Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 372SingaporeCited for the general principles relating to the court’s exercise of discretion to grant an anti-suit injunction.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US IncUnknownYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428SingaporeCited for the five non-exhaustive key factors that the court will consider in deciding whether to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui JakUnknownYes[1987] AC 871UnknownCited for the general principles relating to the court’s exercise of discretion to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte LtdUnknownYes[2018] 2 SLR 1271SingaporeCited for the principle that the court would readily grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain proceedings commenced in breach of exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings LtdUnknownYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 148SingaporeCited for the principle that it must be only in the clearest of circumstances that the foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive before an injunction can be granted and justified.
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt LtdCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 732SingaporeCited for the principle that a breach of an agreement has been regarded as a separate basis on which an anti-suit injunction may be granted.
UBS AG v Telesto Investments LtdUnknownYes[2011] 4 SLR 503SingaporeCited for the principle that a breach of an agreement has been regarded as a separate basis on which an anti-suit injunction may be granted.
BC Andaman Co Ltd v Xie Ning YunUnknownYes[2017] 4 SLR 1232SingaporeCited for the principle that a breach of an agreement has been regarded as a separate basis on which an anti-suit injunction may be granted.
Donohue v Armco IncUnknownYes[2002] 1 All ER 749EnglandCited for the principle that in cases involving an arbitration agreement or an exclusive jurisdiction clause, it would suffice to show that there was a breach of such an agreement, and anti-suit relief would ordinarily be granted unless there are strong reasons not to.
Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte v Hong Leong Finance LtdUnknownYes[2013] 3 SLR 409SingaporeCited for the principle that in cases involving an arbitration agreement or an exclusive jurisdiction clause, it would suffice to show that there was a breach of such an agreement, and anti-suit relief would ordinarily be granted unless there are strong reasons not to.
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The “Angelic Grace”)UnknownYes[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87UnknownCited for the principle that there is no requirement for the court to feel any diffidence in granting an anti-suit injunction, provided that it is sought promptly and before the foreign proceedings are too far advanced.
Hai Jiang 1401 Pte Ltd v Singapore Technologies Marine LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 20SingaporeCited for the High Court's previous note that the boundaries of the effect of exclusive forum clauses on third parties are being tested in many cases and constitutes a complex area of law.
Sea Premium Shipping Ltd v Sea Consortium Pte LtdUnknownYes[2001] EWHC 540 (Admlty)England and WalesCited as the decision after which the Sea Premium line of cases were named.
Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Limited and another v IB Maroc.Com SAUnknownYes[2017] EWHC 2397 (Comm)England and WalesCited as an example of a commercial contract that expressly excluded the application of statutes similar to the CRTA.
CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon ChingCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 386SingaporeCited for the approach to be taken in applying s 2(1)(b) of the CRTA.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdUnknownYes[1987] AC 460UnknownCited for the principles to be applied in determining the natural forum.
JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the five non-exhaustive factors to determine the natural forum.
Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appealUnknownYes[2017] 2 SLR 265SingaporeCited for the principle that greater weight should be ascribed to the factors likely to be material to a fair determination of the dispute.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von UexkullUnknownYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the principle that in a tortious claim, the place where the alleged tort occurred is prima facie the natural forum.
Turner v GrovitUnknownYes[2002] 1 WLR 107UnknownCited for the explanation that the power to make the restraining order is dependent upon there being wrongful (‘unconscionable’) conduct of the party to be restrained of which the applicant is entitled to complain and has a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Exclusive jurisdiction clause
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act
  • Natural forum
  • Vexatious proceedings
  • Estate administration
  • Joint administrators
  • Beneficiaries
  • Indonesian Proceedings

15.2 Keywords

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Contract Rights of Third Parties Act
  • Estate administration
  • Singapore
  • Indonesia
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Exclusive jurisdiction clause

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Anti-suit injunction80
Injunctions75
Civil Procedure60
Contract Law50
Family Law25
Arbitration20
Estoppel15
Trust Law10
Property Law10
Succession Law10

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Trusts
  • Family Law
  • Probate