Conflict of Laws Lecture Notes PDF

Conflict of Laws - Lecture 1: Intro - conflict of laws consists of are rules which determine which of these rules should apply. - Lecture 2: Choice of Law - A. Contract - The 3-stage choice of law rule - Principles - Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Tec...

Conflict of Laws - Lecture 1: Intro - conflict of laws consists of are rules which determine which of these rules should apply. - Lecture 2: Choice of Law - A. Contract - The 3-stage choice of law rule - Principles - Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc \[2008\] 2 SLR(R) 491 (SGCA), \[35\]-\[50\] - Factors for objective and implied stage - The conclusiveness of express choices of law - **[the choice of law must be bona fide and legal]** - Peh Teck Quee v Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale \[1999\] 3 SLR(R) 842 (SGCA), \[12\]-\[18\] - The importance of the **[place of performance]** - First Laser Ltd v Fujian Enterprises (Holdings) Co Ltd \[2013\] 2 HKC 459 (HKCFA), \[53\]-\[56\] - Formation and agency are not covered by the 3-stage rule - B. Tort - The "double actionability" rule and the "flexible exception" - **[the Double actionability rule is the general rule, unless the flexible exception applies.]** - Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull \[2007\] 1 SLR(R) 377 (SGCA), \[52\]-\[73\] - **[Double actionability rule does not apply where it is a local tort / Double actionability rule should only be applued to achieve justice.]** - What are the \'connecting factors\' / Limits - **[The disapplied law must be purely fortuitous (Rickshaw)]** - The lex loci delicti -- general and specific (i.e. law of the place of the tort) - MAN Diesel & Turbo SE v IM Skaugen SE \[2020\] 1 SLR 327 (SGCA), \[107\]-\[109\] - **[Where the tort was absence of communication then the action arose within the jurisdiction (i.e. where the negligent conduct occured)]** - JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd \[2011\] 1 SLR 391 (SGCA), \[90\]-\[95\] - **[where the misrepresentation was received and acted upon]** - Raffles Education Corporation Ltd v Shantanu Prakash \[2020\] SGHC 83, \[49\]-\[51\], \[58\]-\[67\] **[- Where the fraudulent misrepresentation took place.]** - EFT Holdings - **[Where the conspiracy was most concern]** - C. **[Exceptions]** to the choice of law rules - \[1\] Procedural issues - Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher Teck \[2010\] 1 SLR 367 (SGCA), \[16\]-\[22\] - **[e.g. injunctions that are available foreign law may be inconvenient to for the Singapore court to issue; Where the flexible exception does not operate, the lex causae is the lex loci delicti.]** - Foreign Limitation Periods Act 2012 ss 3-4 - **[law of Singapore relating to the limitatio does not apply]** - \[2\] Forum mandatory rules - JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd \[2011\] 1 SLR 391 (SGCA), \[97\]-\[105\] - **[was it Parliament\'s intention that the statute apply outside the territory of Singapore?]** - \[3\] Public policy - **[Would enforcemnt of a rule contravene Singapore public policy?]** - Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd \[2004\] 4 SLR(R) 690 (SGCA), \[26\]-\[32\], \[41\]-\[46\] - Oppenheimer v Cattermole \[1976\] AC 249 (UKHL), 281-284 Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc \[2010\] 1 SLR 1129 (SGCA), \[111\]-\[113\] - Lecture 3: Jurisdiction of law - Is there **[sufficient connection]** between Singapore jurisdiction and the dispute? - A. **[Service within Jurisdiction]** - Existence of jurisdiction - Existence of jurisdiction: natural persons - Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 16(1)(a)(i) - Rules of Court 2021 O 7 r 1-3 - Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd \[2014\] 3 SLR 1 (SGCA), \[94\] - Existence of jurisdiction: **[corporations]** - Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 ss 16(1)(a)(i) and 16(2) - Adams v Cape Industries plc \[1990\] 1 Ch 433 (EWCA), 530-531 - Companies Act 1967 ss 368, 376 and 387 - s368 - s376 - s387 - **[Exercise of jurisdiction]**: **[forum non conveniens; Burden on Defendant to show that Singapore is not the natural forum]** - **[ First: is Singapore prima facie more appropriate than other fora? Second: even if not, would C be denied substantial justice in the foreign court? If the answer to either question is "yes", the Singapore court will exercise jurisdiction]** - Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd \[1987\] 1 AC 460 (UKHL), 474-478, 482-484 - The Spiliada factors - Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra \[2019\] 2 SLR 372 (SGCA), \[53\]-\[58\], \[71\]-\[78\] - If there is real and material risk of injustice arising from the matter being heard by the foreign court, then the **[burden shifts to the Claimant]** - B. **[Service out]** of Jurisdiction **[\[Claimant bears the burden to show natural forum\]]** - Existence of jurisdiction - Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 16(1)(a)(ii) - Rules of Court 2021 O 8 r 1(1)-(2) and 2(1) - What counts as a **[\'sufficient nexus]**\'? - **[Contractual disputes]** (PD 63(3)(d)-(e)) - Where C's claim is to enforce, rescind, annul, or **[interpret]** a contract that is - Where C's claim is specifically to enforce a contract in relation to a **[breach]** (PD 63(3)(e)): - **[Tort disputes]** (PD 63(3)(f) and (p) - 4 scenarios - DJS Solutions Engineering Pte Ltd v AGR 1 Ltd \[2021\] SGHC 19, \[19\]-\[25\] - **[essential step within the meaning of O11r1(d)(i)]** - MAN Diesel & Turbo SE v IM Skaugen SE \[2020\] 1 SLR 327 (SGCA), \[76\]-\[80\], \[95\] - Exercise of jurisdiction: forum non conveniens **[\[Burden on Claimant\]]** - Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd \[1987\] 1 AC 460 (UKHL), 478-482 - C. Jurisdiction Clauses - **[Existence]** of jurisdiction - Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 16(1)(a)(ii) - Rules of Court 2021 O 8 r 1(1) and 1(3) - Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 PDs 63(3)(d)(iv) and 63(3)(r) Exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses - Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming \[2019\] 1 SLR 779 (SGCA), \[81\]-\[85\] - **[Exercise]** of jurisdiction: the "strong cause" test - Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd \[2018\] 2 SLR 1271 (SGCA), \[71\]- \[73\], \[112\]-\[113\], \[128\]-\[141\], \[146\]-\[147\] - submit to the non-/exclusive jurisdiction of the singapore/foreign courts - **[Choice of Courts Agreements Act 2016]** - D. Submission by Conduct - **[What]** amounts to submission by conduct? - Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 s 16(1)(b) - Rules of Court 2021 O 2 r 5(4), O 6 r 6(1)-(4) and 7(4)-(6) - Defence or affidavit and challenge to jurisdiction (O. 2, r. 5) - Form and service of notice of intention to contest or not contest (O. 6, r. 6) - Form and service of defence (O. 6, r. 7) - Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming \[2019\] 1 SLR 779 (SGCA), \[25\]-\[48\] - Reputation Administration Service Pte Ltd v Spamhaus Technology Ltd \[2021\] 2 SLR 342 (SGCA), \[20\]-\[32\] - Lecture 4: Anti-suit injunctions - A. **[Contractual]** anti-suit injunctions - **[5 -factor test]** - **[Effect]** of ASI - However, despite a Singapore jurisdiction clause, courts may deny the ASI where (Sun Travels): - Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd \[2019\] 1 SLR 732 (SGCA), \[64\]- \[87\] - **[ASI cannot be granted where the proceedings have advanced]** - People's Insurance Co Ltd v Akai Pty Ltd \[1997\] 2 SLR(R) 291 (SGHC), \[12\] - **[the Singapore Courts will not intervene if the matter does not concern Singapore Courts]** - B. Non-contractual anti-suit injunctions (4 Factors + Lakshmi delay) - Two scenarios of **[unconscionability]** - Scenario 1: "oppressive procedures" or "extreme inconvenience" - John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US Inc \[2009\] 4 SLR(R) 428 (SGCA), \[46\]-\[52\] - Scenario 2: bad faith commencing proceedings to frustrate Singapore proceedings - Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra \[2019\] 2 SLR 372 (SGCA), \[88\]-\[97\], \[117\], \[129\], \[131\] - even where the foreign court has declined to stay its proceedings, it would not invariably be a breach of comity for the domestic court to grant an anti-suit injunction if it finds that (a) it is clearly the more appropriate forum for the dispute; and (b) the defendant in the application has acted in a vexatious or oppressive manner in commencing the foreign proceedings - Lecture 5: Foreign Judgements - A. Requirements for Recognition/Enforcement - 1\. International **[jurisdiction]** of the foreign court - Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd \[2014\] 2 SLR 545 (SGHC), \[13\]-\[17\] - **[the judgement must be final and conclusive]** - Pemberton v Hughes \[1899\] 1 Ch 781 (EWCA), 791-793 - **[the judgement must be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction]** - Adams v Cape Industries plc \[1990\] 1 Ch 433 (EWCA), 528, 530-531 - 2\. **[Final and conclusive]** as to the **[merits]** - The "Bunga Melati 5" \[2012\] 4 SLR 546 (SGCA), \[79\]-\[89\] - Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra \[2019\] 2 SLR 372 (SGCA), \[99\]-\[105\] - Test for the foreign court\'s jurisdiction - B. Defences - Fraud - Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc \[2002\] 1 SLR(R) 515 (SGCA), \[12\]-\[23\], \[27\]-\[33\] - Breach of natural justice - Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak \[2020\] 2 SLR 1061 (SGCA), \[28\]-\[31\], \[41\]-\[70\] - Public policy - Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd \[2004\] 4 SLR(R) 690 (SGCA), \[26\]-\[32\], \[41\]-\[46\] - Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc \[2010\] 1 SLR 1129 (SGCA), \[111\]-\[113\] - Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA \[2021\] 1 SLR 1102 (SGCA), \[59\]-\[60\] - WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka \[2002\] 3 SLR 603 (SGHC), \[58\]-\[65\] - C. Consequences - Enforcement: money judgments - Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc \[2010\] 1 SLR 1129 (SGCA), \[13\]-\[14\], \[26\]-\[34\] - Estoppel - Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA \[2021\] 1 SLR 1102 (SGCA), \[35\], \[40\]-\[50\] Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK \[2016\] 5 SLR 1322 (SGHC), \[58\]-\[65\]