Kuswandi Sudarga v Sutatno Sudarga: Service Out of Jurisdiction & Natural Forum Dispute
In Kuswandi Sudarga v Sutatno Sudarga, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the defendant's appeal against an order granting the plaintiff leave to serve a writ of summons and statement of claim in Indonesia. The plaintiff, Kuswandi Sudarga, claimed entitlement to 35% of Spare Funds transferred to the defendant's Singapore bank accounts, based on alleged agreements and trust arrangements. The defendant, Sutatno Sudarga, argued Indonesia was the more appropriate forum. Chua Lee Ming J held that Singapore was the more appropriate forum for the trial, considering factors such as the destination and management of the Spare Funds in Singapore, the governing law, and the power to order disclosure of documents.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the 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
Appeal regarding service of writ in Indonesia. The court dismissed the appeal, finding Singapore to be the more appropriate forum.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuswandi Sudarga | Plaintiff | Individual | Leave to serve writ of summons and statement of claim in Indonesia upheld | Won | |
| Sutatno Sudarga | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and defendant are brothers and Indonesian nationals.
- Dispute concerns 'Spare Funds' from family businesses deposited in Singapore bank accounts.
- Plaintiff claims entitlement to 35% of the Spare Funds.
- Defendant applied to set aside order granting plaintiff leave to serve writ in Indonesia.
- The Spare Funds were transferred to Singapore and managed using Singapore banks.
- Plaintiff claims based on resulting trust, express trust, constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
- The defendant set up The Maharani Trust and The Next Generation Trust in Jersey.
5. Formal Citations
- Kuswandi Sudarga v Sutatno Sudarga, Suit No 968 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeal No 233 of 2022), [2022] SGHC 299
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| PT Asia Industri Ceramic set up | |
| PT PCI shareholding restructured | |
| Kusuma passed away | |
| PT PCI shares transferred to companies | |
| PT RINI transferred to the defendant and his ex-wife | |
| Plaintiff and defendant paid US$25m to Laniwati | |
| The Maharani Trust set up | |
| The Next Generation Trust set up | |
| Defendant instructed BNP Paribas Jersey Nominee Company Ltd to transfer Trans World shares | |
| BNP account number 8008799 closed | |
| Plaintiff discovered defendant closed UBS account number 111082 | |
| Trustee of The Maharani Trust informed plaintiff that the trust had been terminated | |
| Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant | |
| Plaintiff obtained Leave Order | |
| Service effected on the defendant in Indonesia | |
| Defendant filed HC/SUM 1437/2022 | |
| SUM 1437 heard before the Assistant Registrar | |
| AR dismissed the application | |
| Appeal heard | |
| Appeal dismissed | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Service Out of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court upheld the order granting leave to serve the writ of summons and statement of claim in Indonesia.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Compliance with Order 11 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court
- Sufficient degree of merit of the claim
- Singapore as the proper forum for trial
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Outcome: The court determined that Singapore was the more appropriate forum for the trial.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of the Spiliada test
- Stage One: Identifying the more appropriate forum
- Stage Two: Considerations of justice
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of beneficial ownership
- Account of profits
- Monetary damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Resulting Trust
- Express Trust
- Common Intention Constructive Trust
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- International Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 500 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for valid service out of jurisdiction and the burden of proof when setting aside an order for service out of jurisdiction. |
| Li Shengwu v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof required to establish a good arguable case and the merit of a claim in service out of jurisdiction applications. |
| Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd (The Spiliada) | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 460 | England and Wales | Cited for the test to determine the proper forum for a trial, applicable to both service out of jurisdiction and stay of proceedings applications. |
| Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 265 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage Spiliada test for determining the more appropriate forum, focusing on relevant connections and the interests of justice. |
| Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited for factors to consider when determining the more appropriate forum, including personal connections, relevant events, applicable law, and the shape of litigation. |
| 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 the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that Singapore is the more appropriate forum in service out of jurisdiction applications. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications for leave to serve out of jurisdiction. |
| JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 391 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden on the defendant to establish that there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Singapore. |
| Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra | High Court | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the governing law is of limited relevance when the key issues in dispute are factual and not legal in nature. |
| Thahir Kartika Ratna v PT Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 312 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a claim in unjust enrichment, the obligation to restore the benefit is governed by the proper law of the obligation. |
| Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 589 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the applicable law to govern the recovery of a bribe received by an employee. |
| Trisuryo Garuda Nusa Pte Ltd v SKP Pradiksi (North) Sdn Bhd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the parties' choice of corporate structure can point towards an implied choice of Singapore law. |
| Perry, Tamar and another v Esculier, Bonnet Servane Michele Thais and another | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 243 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of applying the law most closely connected to the putative resulting and constructive trusts. |
| Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 638 | Singapore | Cited for considering compellability of document disclosure under Stage One of the Spiliada test. |
| Konamaneni and others v Rolls Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd and others | Chancery Division of the English High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 1269 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that Stage Two of the Spiliada test has no application in a case involving service out of jurisdiction. |
| Allenger, Shiona (trustee-in-bankruptcy of the estate of Pelletier, Richard Paul Joseph) v Pelletier, Olga and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 353 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inquiry for leave for service outside jurisdiction is distinct from the inquiry for a stay application. |
| Shen Sophie v Xia Wei Ping and others | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 206 | Singapore | Cited for the view that Stage Two of the Spiliada test applies to applications for leave to serve out of jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 11 r 1 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 12 r 7(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Spare Funds
- PT PCI
- The Maharani Trust
- The Next Generation Trust
- Defendant’s Singapore Bank Accounts
- Service out of jurisdiction
- Forum non conveniens
- Spiliada test
15.2 Keywords
- service out of jurisdiction
- forum non conveniens
- trust
- Singapore
- Indonesia
- Spiliada test
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- Trusts
- Jurisdiction