Finaport Pte Ltd v Techteryx Ltd: Anti-Suit Injunction & Conflict of Laws

In Finaport Pte Ltd v Techteryx Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Finaport's application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Techteryx from pursuing litigation in Hong Kong, where Techteryx is the claimant and Finaport is the second defendant. The court, presided over by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, found that the Hong Kong suit was not vexatious or oppressive to Finaport and that Techteryx had not breached any obligations. The decision was made on 30 July 2024, with grounds issued on 27 December 2024.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismissed Finaport's application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Techteryx from pursuing litigation in Hong Kong.

1.7 Decision Date

26 December 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Finaport Pte Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Paras Manohar Lalwani of Bayfront Law LLC Abdul Mateen Bajerai of Bayfront Law LLC
Techteryx Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Won	Keith Tnee of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Tyronne Toh of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Foo Yiew Min of Tan Kok Quan Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Vinodh Coomaraswamy	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Paras Manohar Lalwani	Bayfront Law LLC
Abdul Mateen Bajerai	Bayfront Law LLC
Keith Tnee	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Tyronne Toh	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Foo Yiew Min	Tan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

Finaport sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain Techteryx from pursuing litigation in Hong Kong.
Techteryx commenced the Hong Kong Suit due to a substantial erosion of the Reserves.
Finaport is a company incorporated and carrying on business in Singapore, providing investment advice.
Techteryx is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and carries on business in Hong Kong.
In March 2021, Finaport entered into a Discretionary Investment Management Agreement with First Digital Trust Limited.
A substantial part of the US$468m investment from the Reserves in ACFF and in Aria DMCC appears now to be irrecoverable.
The respondent’s case is that it did not know about, approve or authorise FDT’s investment of US$456m in Aria DMCC.

5. Formal Citations

Finaport Pte Ltd v Techteryx Ltd, Originating Application No 474 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 329

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-09-28	Client Agreement between Techteryx and First Digital Trust Limited entered into.
2020-09-28	Custody Services Agreement between Techteryx and First Digital Trust Limited entered into.
2020-12-01	Techteryx acquired the business of owning and administering TrueUSD.
2021-01-13	Escrow Services Agreement between Techteryx and First Digital Trust Limited entered into.
2021-03-01	Finaport entered into a Discretionary Investment Management Agreement with First Digital Trust Limited.
2022-05-01	First Digital Trust Limited invested US$12m of the Reserves in Aria Commodity Finance Fund.
2022-05-01	First Digital Trust Limited invested US$456m of the Reserves in Aria Commodities DMCC.
2022-08-01	Techteryx instructed First Digital Trust Limited to redeem US$82.8m of the Reserves invested in Aria Commodity Finance Fund.
2022-09-16	Deed of Amendment of the Escrow Services Agreement between Techteryx and First Digital Trust Limited entered into.
2023-02-01	Techteryx commenced the Hong Kong Suit.
2023-04-01	Techteryx commissioned Kroll (Hong Kong) Limited to conduct a forensic accounting review of Aria Commodity Finance Fund and its affiliated entities.
2023-06-01	Kroll completed its review.
2023-12-01	Techteryx applied ex parte for leave to join Finaport, Aria Commodity Finance Fund and Aria Commodities DMCC as additional defendants to the Hong Kong Suit.
2024-05-01	Finaport brought an application in Singapore, seeking an anti-suit injunction against Techteryx.
2024-07-30	The court dismissed the application with costs.
2024-12-27	Grounds of decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an anti-suit injunction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Restraint of foreign proceedings
  - Vexatious or oppressive conduct
  - Breach of agreement
Natural Forum
- Outcome: The court held that Hong Kong was the natural forum for resolving the dispute.
- Category: Jurisdictional
Vexatious or Oppressive Proceedings
- Outcome: The court found that the Hong Kong Suit was not vexatious or oppressive to the applicant.
- Category: Substantive
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent had not commenced the Hong Kong Suit in breach of any contract.
- Category: Substantive
Vandepitte Procedure
- Outcome: The court determined that it was more appropriate for the Hong Kong court to decide whether the respondent could rely on the Vandepitte procedure in the Hong Kong Suit.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Anti-Suit Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Negligence
Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 732	Singapore	Cited for the fundamental points about the court’s jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak and another	Unknown	Yes	[1987] AC 871	Unknown	Cited for the fundamental points about the court’s jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others	Unknown	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428	Singapore	Cited for the requirements that must be met for the court to grant an anti-suit injunction.
VKC v VJZ and another	Unknown	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 753	Singapore	Cited for the requirements that must be met for the court to grant an anti-suit injunction.
Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 148	Singapore	Cited for the court's in personam jurisdiction over litigants under s 16 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969.
BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others v Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased)	Unknown	Yes	[2023] 1 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that comity suggests that the foreign court should decide whether the action in that court should proceed.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1987] AC 460	Unknown	Cited for the principle that a court is the natural forum for the resolution of a dispute if it has the most real and substantial connection with the dispute.
Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal	Unknown	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 265	Singapore	Cited for the connecting factors to establish which court has the most real and substantial connection with a dispute.
Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 638	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an express choice of law clause is a significant consideration in determining the natural forum.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra	Unknown	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 372	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the legal issues are straightforward, or if the competing forums have domestic laws which are substantially similar, the identity of the governing law becomes a factor of little significance.
The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) v Westacre Investments Inc and other appeals	Unknown	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 372	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that only a trustee has the procedural right to bring action against a third party to recover loss to the trust property.
Vandepitte v Preferred Accident Insurance Corporation of New York	House of Lords	Yes	[1933] AC 70	United Kingdom	Cited for the Vandepitte procedure, which permits a beneficiary to bring action directly against a third party in the beneficiary’s own name.
Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Singapore and another v AM General Insurance Bhd (formerly known as Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Bhd) (Liew Voon Fah, third party)	Unknown	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 882	Singapore	Cited for the prerequisite for invoking the Vandepitte procedure.
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The “Angelic Grace”)	Unknown	Yes	[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87	Unknown	Cited for the principle that the injunction is sought promptly and before the foreign proceedings are too far advanced.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969	Singapore
Hong Kong Trustee Ordinance (Cap 29)	Hong Kong

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Anti-suit injunction
Natural forum
Vexatious or oppressive conduct
Breach of agreement
International comity
Discretionary Investment Management Agreement
TrueUSD
Stablecoin
Reserves
Vandepitte procedure

15.2 Keywords

Anti-suit injunction
Conflict of laws
Singapore
Hong Kong
Investment
Trust
Cryptocurrency

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Anti-suit injunction	95
Injunctions	90
Restraint of foreign proceedings	80
Vexatious and oppressive conduct	75
Natural forum	70
Comity	60
Jurisdiction	60
Breach of Contract	50
Contracts	40
Commercial Litigation	40
Civil Litigation	40
International Arbitration	30
Arbitration	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Injunctions
Conflict of Laws