Gate Gourmet Korea v Asiana Airlines: Anti-Suit Injunction for Breach of Arbitration Agreement
In Gate Gourmet Korea Co Ltd and others v Asiana Airlines, Inc [2023] SGHC(I) 23, the Singapore International Commercial Court granted anti-suit injunctions to Gate Gourmet Korea Co Ltd, Gate Gourmet Switzerland GMBH, Christoph Schmitz, and Xavier Rossinyol Espel, restraining Asiana Airlines, Inc from proceeding with two civil suits in South Korea. The suits concerned the validity of a catering agreement and claims for damages related to an alleged breach of trust. The court found that Asiana's actions breached arbitration agreements, warranting the injunctions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Anti-suit injunction granted to restrain Asiana from proceeding with Korean CA Proceedings and Korean Compensation Proceedings.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The SICC granted anti-suit injunctions to restrain Asiana Airlines from pursuing Korean lawsuits in breach of arbitration agreements.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asiana Airlines, Inc | Respondent | Corporation | Anti-suit injunction granted against | Lost | |
| Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Anti-suit injunction granted | Won | |
| Gate Gourmet Switzerland GmbH | Applicant | Corporation | Anti-suit injunction granted | Won | |
| Christoph Schmitz | Applicant | Individual | Anti-suit injunction granted | Won | |
| Xavier Rossinyol Espel | Applicant | Individual | Anti-suit injunction granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Thorley | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Asiana and Gate Gourmet entities entered into four agreements, including a Joint Venture Agreement and a Catering Agreement.
- The agreements contained arbitration clauses specifying Singapore as the seat of arbitration.
- A prior arbitration resulted in an award in favor of Gate Gourmet, which Asiana unsuccessfully challenged in Singapore courts.
- Asiana commenced civil suits in South Korea, claiming the Catering Agreement was invalid due to breach of trust by its chairman.
- Gate Gourmet sought anti-suit injunctions in Singapore to restrain Asiana from pursuing the Korean lawsuits.
- Chairman Park was convicted of embezzlement and breach of trust in Korea related to the agreements.
5. Formal Citations
- Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd and othersvAsiana Airlines, Inc, Originating Application No 14 of 2023, [2023] SGHC(I) 23
- Asiana Airlines, Inc v Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd and others, , [2022] SGHC(I) 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Joint Venture Agreement signed | |
| Catering Agreement signed | |
| Bonds with Warrants Subscription Agreement signed | |
| Management Services Agreement signed | |
| Arbitration commenced by Gate Gourmet Korea Co Ltd | |
| Final Award issued | |
| Gate Gourmet Korea Co Ltd commenced enforcement proceedings in Seoul Southern District Court | |
| Chairman Park indicted by Korean Public Prosecutor | |
| Asiana commenced SIC/OS 11/2021 in the Singapore International Commercial Court | |
| Asiana brought Korean CA Proceedings against GGK before the Incheon District Court | |
| SIC/OS 11/2021 dismissed by a Judgment | |
| Chairman Park sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment | |
| Asiana commenced the Korean Compensation Proceedings against GGS and the Directors before the Seoul Southern District Court | |
| Appeal from OS 11 to the Court of Appeal dismissed | |
| HC/OA 656/2023 commenced in the General Division of the High Court | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: Court held that Asiana's commencement of proceedings in Korea was a breach of the arbitration agreements.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of arbitration clause
- Validity of arbitration agreement
- Applicability of separability doctrine
- Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: Court granted anti-suit injunctions to restrain Asiana from proceeding with the Korean lawsuits.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Vexatious or oppressive conduct
- Breach of agreement
- Comity
- Arbitrability
- Outcome: Court held that the disputes were arbitrable under Korean law, despite allegations of illegality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Public policy
- Separability of arbitration agreement
- Scope of arbitrable disputes
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaratory Judgment
- Anti-Suit Injunction
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Tortious Interference
- Breach of Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- International Arbitration
11. Industries
- Airline
- Catering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VEW v VEV | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the grant of anti-suit injunctions. |
| Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 732 | Singapore | Cited for the grounds for granting an anti-suit injunction and the relevance of delay. |
| Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case involving the breach of an arbitration clause. |
| Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd v Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 56 | Singapore | Cited for the power to grant interim and permanent anti-suit injunctions. |
| Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 103 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an anti-suit injunction is directed not against the foreign court but against the party. |
| Donohue v Armco Inc | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 1 All ER 749 | England | Cited for the principle that anti-suit relief would ordinarily be granted unless there are strong reasons not to and for the approach where both parties and non-parties were involved. |
| Hai Jiang 1401 Pte Ltd v Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1014 | Singapore | Cited for the court’s power to grant an anti-suit injunction as the flip side of the court’s power to stay domestic proceedings. |
| BC Andaman Co Ltd v Xie Ning Yun | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1232 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the interests of both parties must be considered when granting an anti-suit injunction. |
| Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd and Gunvor Singapore Pte Ltd v Xiang Da Marine Pte Ltd | High Court of England | Yes | [2019] EWHC 284 (Comm) | England | Cited for the approach where both parties and non-parties were involved and the avoidance of forum fragmentation. |
| Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the three-stage test to determine the proper law of an arbitration agreement and the effect of public policy on the ability to arbitrate. |
| Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the relationship between arbitrability and public policy. |
| BCY v BCZ | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the three-stage test to determine the proper law of an arbitration agreement. |
| Sulamérica Cia National de Seguros SA and Others v Enesa Engelharia SA and others | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 WLR 102 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the choice of law to govern the main arbitration will lead to a conclusion that the same law was intended to govern the arbitration agreement. |
| CNA v CNB and another and other matters | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC(I) 6 | Singapore | Cited as a case where an issue arose as to whether an agreement was void under Article 103 or 107 of the Korean Civil Code. |
| Republic of Mozambique (acting through its Attorney General) (Appellant) v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others (Respondents) | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom | Yes | [2023] UKSC 32 | United Kingdom | Cited for the interpretation of Section 9 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 and the determination of 'matters' which must be referred to arbitration. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act 1909 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act 2001 | Singapore |
| Korean Civil Code Article 103 | Korea |
| Korean Arbitration Act 2016 Article 9(1) | Korea |
| Korean Civil Code Article 35(1) | Korea |
| Korean Civil Code Article 750 | Korea |
| Korean Civil Code Article 760 | Korea |
| Korean Civil Code Article 756 | Korea |
| UK Arbitration Act 1996 (c 23) Section 9 | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Anti-suit injunction
- Arbitration agreement
- Breach of trust
- Separability doctrine
- Korean Civil Code Article 103
- Forum fragmentation
- Kompetenz-kompetenz
- Public policy
- Catering agreement
- Joint venture agreement
15.2 Keywords
- Anti-suit injunction
- Arbitration
- Singapore International Commercial Court
- Korean Law
- Breach of Contract
- International Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Anti-suit injunction | 95 |
| Arbitration | 95 |
| Jurisdiction | 70 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Torts | 30 |
| Estoppel | 25 |
| Company Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- International Law