Agency for Policy Coordination v Batbold: Authority to Act & Warrant in Civil Procedure
The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia, Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC, and Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi LLC, as plaintiffs, initiated a case against Batbold Sukhbaatar and others in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiffs' solicitors, Rev Law LLC, had the authority to act on their behalf, given that the warrant to act was authorized by the Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office of Mongolia (MPOM) and not directly by the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs are duly and properly represented by Rev Law, as MPOM is empowered under Mongolian law to instruct K&S to bring proceedings outside Mongolia, including Singapore.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs are duly and properly represented by Rev Law.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses whether a foreign prosecutor can authorize a solicitor to act on behalf of state entities without their consent. The court held that consent of the named party is not a prerequisite.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Plaintiffs are duly and properly represented | Neutral | |
| Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC | Plaintiff | Corporation | Plaintiffs are duly and properly represented | Neutral | |
| Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi LLC | Plaintiff | Corporation | Plaintiffs are duly and properly represented | Neutral | |
| Batbold Sukhbaatar | Defendant | Individual | No specific outcome for this defendant | Neutral | |
| Cheong Choo Young | Defendant | Individual | No specific outcome for this defendant | Neutral | |
| Kim Hak Seon | Defendant | Individual | No specific outcome for this defendant | Neutral | |
| Cliveden Trading AG | Defendant | Corporation | No specific outcome for this defendant | Neutral | |
| Everest VC Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application to discharge the injunction denied | Lost | |
| Ponduver Pte Limited | Defendant | Corporation | No specific outcome for this defendant | Neutral | |
| Eoin Barry Saadien | Defendant | Individual | Application to discharge the injunction denied | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Jeyaretnam | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Agency owns 100% of Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC.
- Erdenet Mining holds the Mongolian State’s interest in the Erdenet copper mine.
- Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi LLC is also owned by the Government of Mongolia.
- Erdenes OT holds the Mongolian State’s interest in a copper and gold mine, known as Oyu Tolgoi.
- MPOM filed a civil case on behalf of the plaintiffs against the first defendant and others before the Bayanzurkh District Civil Court of First Instance in Mongolia.
- MPOM alleges that the first defendant made substantial secret profits from contracts awarded in relation to the Erdenet and Oyu Tolgoi mines.
- The plaintiffs obtained a freezing order in Singapore proceedings in support of the Mongolian Claim against the defendants.
5. Formal Citations
- The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia and others v Batbold Sukhbaatar and others, Suit No 1145 of 2020 (Summons No 5541 of 2020), [2021] SGHC 50
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office of Mongolia filed a civil case on behalf of the plaintiffs. | |
| Rev Law LLC addressed a letter of engagement to K&S. | |
| Mongolian Claim case opened by Judicial Decree No. 101/SHZ2020/20219. | |
| Ts Nasanbat instructed Ms Walker to seek orders to freeze or injunct assets. | |
| Plaintiffs obtained a freezing order in Singapore proceedings. | |
| Chief Cabinet Secretary of Mongolia sent a letter to the first defendant. | |
| Fifth and sixth defendants filed an application to discharge the injunction. | |
| Hearing on the discharge application. | |
| Hearing on the preliminary point of Rev Law’s authority. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Authority of Solicitor to Act
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs are duly and properly represented by Rev Law, as MPOM is empowered under Mongolian law to instruct K&S to bring proceedings outside Mongolia, including Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Absence of warrant to act
- Duly authorised agent
- Implied Authority of Agent
- Outcome: The court found that the prosecutor of Mongolia has the right under Mongolian law to participate in proceedings outside Mongolia in the names of state organisations, where he considers that there has been a violation of public interest.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Freezing order
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Mining
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syed Salim Alhadad & Others v Shaika Amnah | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 572 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that unauthorised institution of legal proceedings may be ratified, in accordance with the law of agency. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step approach to statutory interpretation. |
| 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) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 226 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that questions of capacity are determined under the law of the country in which the body is incorporated. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) Order 64 Rule 7 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1) | Singapore |
| Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) s 4 | Singapore |
| Mental Capacity Act s 11 | Singapore |
| Mental Capacity Act s 20 | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 216A | Singapore |
| Companies Act s 230 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116(g) | Singapore |
| Law on Prosecutor of Mongolia Article 20 | Mongolia |
| Law on Prosecutor of Mongolia Article 20.1 | Mongolia |
| Law on Prosecutor of Mongolia Article 20.4 | Mongolia |
| Law on Prosecutor of Mongolia Articles 3, 5 and 7 | Mongolia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Warrant to act
- Duly authorised agent
- Rules of Court
- Mongolian Claim
- Freezing order
- Injunction
- Public interest
- Law on Prosecutor of Mongolia
- Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office of Mongolia
15.2 Keywords
- Authority to act
- Warrant
- Civil procedure
- Agency
- Mongolia
- Prosecutor
- State Property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Agency Law | 65 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
| Evidence | 25 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Agency
- Conflict of Laws