Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish: Forum Non Conveniens & Arbitration Agreement

In Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners Pte Ltd and others, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendants' applications to stay Originating Claim No 163 of 2023 on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing Malaysia was the more appropriate forum. The claimant, Chang Chee Kheo, sought to recover monies loaned to Fatfish Investment Partners Pte Ltd. The court, presided over by AR Perry Peh, dismissed the stay applications, finding the defendants failed to demonstrate Malaysia was a more appropriate forum. The court considered the personal connections of parties and witnesses, the location of events and transactions, and the arbitration clause.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Stay Applications dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court considers stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens, focusing on arbitration agreements and connecting factors. Stay applications dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chang Chee KheoClaimantIndividualApplications DismissedWonPatrick Ong Kok Seng, Kimberly Lim
Fatfish Investment Partners Pte LtdDefendantCorporationStay Application DismissedLostChu Hua Yi, Goh Jia Jie
Fatfish Group Limited (formerly known as Fatfish Internet Group Ltd)DefendantCorporationStay Application DismissedLostChu Hua Yi, Goh Jia Jie
Fatfish Capital LimitedDefendantCorporationStay Application DismissedLostChu Hua Yi, Goh Jia Jie

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Perry PehAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Patrick Ong Kok SengPatrick Ong Law LLC
Kimberly LimPatrick Ong Law LLC
Chu Hua YiFC Legal Asia LLC
Goh Jia JieFC Legal Asia LLC

4. Facts

  1. Chang claimed monies loaned to FIPL under Promissory Loan Notes (PNs).
  2. FGL and FCL provided guarantees for FIPL's repayment obligations.
  3. Funds were remitted by Chang in Malaysian Ringgit to Fatfish Ventures Sdn Bhd (FV).
  4. The PNs were governed by Singapore law and contained an arbitration clause.
  5. Chang commenced arbitration but withdrew it due to the Defendants’ non-participation.
  6. Chang then commenced OC 163 in the High Court of Singapore.
  7. Defendants applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing Malaysia was a more appropriate forum.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners Pte Ltd and others, Originating Claim No 163 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 1517 and 1518 of 2023), [2023] SGHCR 12

6. Timeline

DateEvent
PN1 entered into
PN2 entered into
PN3 entered into
PN1 extended for a further 12 months (PN1A)
PN3 extended with effect from (PN3A)
PN1A extended for a further 12 months (PN1B)
Letter of demand sent to the Defendants
OC 163 commenced
Defendants’ solicitors filed the Defendants’ Notice to Contest
Defendants filed a defence challenging the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts
Judgment reserved
Judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the stay applications, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate that Malaysia was a more appropriate forum.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • connecting factors
      • personal connections of parties and witnesses
      • location of events and transactions
      • applicable law to the dispute
      • arbitration agreement
  2. Stay of Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court ultimately decided not to grant a stay of proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Arbitration Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that the claimant's commencement of court proceedings did not constitute a repudiation of the arbitration agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • repudiation of arbitration agreement

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Recovery of Monies Loaned

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdN/AYes[1987] AC 460N/ACited for the principles governing an application for a stay of proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeApproved the principles in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd.
Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appealN/AYes[2017] 2 SLR 265SingaporeCited for connecting factors in determining forum non conveniens.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdN/AYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the legal burden on the applicant for a stay to show that there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than Singapore.
Siemens AG v Holdrich Investment LtdN/AYes[2010] 3 SLR 1007SingaporeCited for the stay applicant to show that there are connecting factors pointing away from Singapore and towards a foreign jurisdiction as the more appropriate forum.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort LtdN/AYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543SingaporeCited for the stay applicant to just show that Singapore is not forum conveniens.
Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appealN/AYes[2013] 4 SLR 1097SingaporeCited for the definition of lis alibi pendens.
Trisuyo Garuda Nusa Pte Ltd v SKP Pradiksi (North) Sdn Bhd and another and another appealN/AYes[2017] 2 SLR 814SingaporeCited for the shape of the litigation.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraN/AYes[2019] 2 SLR 372SingaporeCited for the physical locations of witnesses are of less significance today given the ease of travel and the possibility of that witness giving evidence by video-link.
Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust LtdN/AYes[2020] 2 SLR 638SingaporeCited for the issue of compellability.
Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu MingN/AYes[2019] 1 SLR 779SingaporeCited for non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement.
UBS AG v Telesto Investments Ltd and others and another matterN/AYes[2011] 4 SLR 503SingaporeCited for non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement.
PT Jaya Putra Kundur Indah v Guthrie Overseas Investments Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1996] SGHC 284SingaporeCited for non-exclusive jurisdiction agreement.
Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte LtdN/AYes[2018] 2 SLR 1271SingaporeCited for exclusive jurisdiction agreements.
Marty Ltd v Hualon Corp (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (receiver and manager appointed)N/AYes[2018] 2 SLR 1207SingaporeCited for repudiation of arbitration agreement.
Sinopec International (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bank of Communications Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 245SingaporeCited for compellability of a witness.
Best Soar Ltd v Praxis Energy Agents Pte LtdN/AYes[2018] 3 SLR 423SingaporeCited for the location of the events and transactions constitutes a connecting factor in favor of that jurisdiction.
The “Chem Orchid”N/AYes[2015] 2 SLR 1020SingaporeCited for if foreign law is not proved, the content of foreign law will be presumed to be the same as the law of the forum.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act 1967Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Promissory Loan Notes
  • Arbitration Clause
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Connecting Factors
  • Governing Law
  • Repudiation
  • SIAC Rules
  • Personal Connections
  • Place of Business

15.2 Keywords

  • forum non conveniens
  • arbitration
  • stay of proceedings
  • Singapore
  • Malaysia
  • contract
  • loan
  • jurisdiction

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Contract Law
  • Arbitration

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Arbitration Law