City Spark v The Outdoor Recreation Group: Forum Non Conveniens in Defamation Claim

In City Spark (Singapore) Pte Ltd v The Outdoor Recreation Group, LLC and another, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the defendants' appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss their application for a stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens. City Spark Singapore initiated a defamation claim against The Outdoor Recreation Group, LLC and Andrew Altshule. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, found that the defendants did not discharge their burden of proving that the United States was a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum and dismissed the appeal with costs. The court determined that Singapore has the most real and substantial connection with the case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court dismisses stay application in defamation suit. The court found Singapore to be the more appropriate forum, considering key witnesses and applicable law.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
City Spark (Singapore) Pte LtdClaimant, RespondentCorporationAppeal dismissedWon
The Outdoor Recreation Group, LLCDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal dismissedLost
Andrew AltshuleDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zheng ShengyangKelvin Chia Partnership
Harry Yeo Qi CherylKelvin Chia Partnership
Ling Vey HongFoxwood LLC
Ng Huiling CherylFoxwood LLC

4. Facts

  1. City Spark Singapore claims to be TORG’s competitor to their mutual client, Dell Global B.V. (Singapore Branch).
  2. TORG commenced a claim in California against Xiamen Spark Import and Export Co Ltd.
  3. Mr Altshule sent a text message to Mrinal Jain, a procurement director at Dell Singapore, informing him of the US Claim.
  4. City Spark Singapore claims that the statement is defamatory and commenced an action against the appellants.
  5. The appellants filed a summons to stay the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
  6. Mr Jain is a key third-party witness who works and resides in Singapore.
  7. Mr Jain received the statement from Mr Altshule via WhatsApp in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. City Spark (Singapore) Pte Ltd v The Outdoor Recreation Group, LLC and another, Originating Claim No 614 of 2024(Registrar’s Appeal No 4 of 2025), [2025] SGHC 25

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parent company of TORG commenced a claim in California against Xiamen Spark Import and Export Co Ltd
Mr Altshule sent a text message to Mrinal Jain
City Spark Singapore commenced action against the appellants
Appellants filed a summons to stay the whole action
Application dismissed by the Assistant Registrar
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued
Counsel to submit arguments on costs

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellants did not discharge their burden of proving that the United States was a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] AC 460
      • [2019] 2 SLR 372
  2. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court considered the governing law of the tort of defamation to be Singapore law.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377
      • [2013] 1 SLR 1016
      • [2010] 2 SLR 860

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • International Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Ng Kuang Nicky (the duly appointed joint and several liquidator of Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)) and others v Metax Eco Solutions Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1135SingaporeCited for the proposition that a court will not answer hypothetical questions or opine on academic points merely because a party wants a ruling from the court.
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v JervisHouse of LordsYes[1944] AC 111United KingdomCited to show that the House of Lords declined to hear an appeal because they found that there was no issue before them to be decided between the parties.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460United KingdomCited for the principle that the legal burden is on an applicant (for a stay) to show that there is a clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum elsewhere.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraSingapore Court of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 372SingaporeCited for the relevant factors for consideration in determining the choice of law for claims in tort.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the principle that for a tort to be actionable in Singapore, the alleged wrong must be actionable not only under the law of the forum (the lex fori) but also under the law of the place where the wrong was in fact committed (the lex loci delicti).
Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto SiaSingapore Court of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 1016SingaporeCited for the principle that the place of commission of the tort of defamation is the place in which the defamatory statement is published.
Ng Koo Kay Benedict and another v Zim Integrated Shipping Services LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 860SingaporeCited for the principle that where online defamation is concerned, the place of commission refers to the place where the material is downloaded and accessed by end users.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the principle that the physical location of witnesses is less significant today given the ease of travel and the possibility of overseas witnesses giving evidence by video-link.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum non conveniens
  • Defamation
  • Stay of proceedings
  • Lex fori
  • Lex loci delicti
  • Double actionability rule

15.2 Keywords

  • Defamation
  • Forum non conveniens
  • Singapore
  • Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Conflict of Laws80
Civil Procedure75
Jurisdiction70
Natural forum70
Defamation60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Defamation