COL 4 - Anti-Suit Injunctions

A court order preventing proceedings in a foreign court when a jurisdiction agreement (e.g., a clause in a contract) designates a specific court (e.g., Singapore).

A clause in a contract specifying the court that will hear any dispute arising from the contract.

A party is subject to the court's authority to hear a case.

Breach of jurisdiction agreement by foreign proceedings.

Injunction preventing proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction to enforce a jurisdiction clause (contractual agreement).

Singapore's court has jurisdiction if a contract chooses it as the forum for disputes.

Legal actions commenced in a court outside of the specific jurisdiction where it is to be heard per agreement.

Courts generally uphold the chosen court in a jurisdiction clause, forcing parties to litigate there.

Singapore courts refusing to interfere in proceedings between two foreign states, even if they have jurisdiction over one party.

A court order preventing proceedings in a foreign court related to a dispute already in a Singapore court.

A clause in an agreement specifying that Singapore courts have jurisdiction over a dispute.

Cases where a Singapore court might refuse to issue an anti-suit injunction in favor of foreign proceedings, despite the jurisdiction clause.

A situation where the Singapore courts decide not to enforce a jurisdiction clause.

Seeking an anti-suit injunction after significant delay of foreign proceedings.

The concept that a court not chosen by parties in a jurisdiction clause still has an interest in avoiding proceedings that waste time and money.

Respect for other jurisdictions and their court proceedings. It encourages avoiding unnecessary interference in another country's legal matters.

When the same lawsuit happens in multiple courts, it's wasteful and can lead to conflicting rulings.

The court most suitable to hear a case, based on factors like the location of the parties, witnesses, or evidence.

An injunction preventing a foreign court from hearing a case, even without a jurisdiction clause, to prevent conflict and promote comity.

By the very fact itself, inherently.

At first glance, on its face, or without further evidence.

Delay in seeking an anti-suit injunction can be a reason for a court to deny it, especially if the delay harmed the foreign court or the defendant.

The only acceptable reason for a delay in seeking an anti-suit injunction is if the applicant was actively challenging the foreign court's jurisdiction.

An anti-suit injunction is a last resort when a party has tried unsuccessfully to convince the foreign court to stop its proceedings.

Delay in seeking an anti-suit injunction is acceptable if the applicant acted in good faith by challenging the foreign court's jurisdiction.

Courts are more likely to grant an anti-suit injunction if there's a jurisdiction clause clearly selecting a specific court (like in Singapore).

Courts may still grant an anti-suit injunction even without a jurisdiction clause, but it's less likely.

An anti-suit injunction is an equitable remedy, meaning it's based on fairness and justice, not just legal rights.

A court order preventing proceedings in a foreign court when there's no agreement specifying jurisdiction.

1. Singapore Court Jurisdiction over the Defendant: The Singapore court must be able to hear the case against the party being sued.
2. Singapore Court as Natural Forum: The Singapore court must be a suitable and appropriate place to try the case.
3. Vexatious or Oppressive Foreign Proceedings: Continuing the lawsuit in the foreign court must be significantly unfair or burdensome to the party seeking the injunction.

The Singapore court must have the authority to hear a case against the party being sued (the respondent).

The Singapore court must be considered a suitable and convenient location to try the case.

Continuing the lawsuit in the foreign court must significantly harm or unduly burden the party seeking the injunction.

Even if a claimant meets all three requirements for a non-contractual anti-suit injunction, it may be denied if the claimant unreasonably delayed in seeking it from the Singapore court.

The foreign proceedings are considered grossly unfair to the party who seeks the injunction.

When are foreign legal proceedings considered so unfair or burdensome that they justify a non-contractual anti-suit injunction?

When legal proceedings are excessively burdensome or inconvenient for a party.

The outcome of a legal case should be fair and just, not just technically correct.

Legal actions started with the intention to make things hard for the other party, not to resolve the issue fairly.

When foreign proceedings are started to disrupt or undermine a case already in a Singapore court.

When a defendant basically admits that they would lose in a foreign court, but start proceedings there anyway.

When a defendant starts foreign proceedings to annoy or disrupt the plaintiff's actions in Singapore.