Content area
Full Text
This is the first annual survey of conflict of laws cases in this inaugural issue of Singapore Year Book of International Law. Seven cases will be considered in this year's survey. ' Before looking at these cases, it is useful to make two preliminary comments. First, generally, only cases in from the High Court and Court of Appeal will be considered. In exceptional situations, cases from the Subordinate Courts will be considered. Secondly, conflict of laws cases often relate to other areas of law. In these situations, this survey will only consider those parts of the case that relate to conflict of laws.
I. ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS, AMENABILITY TO JURISDICTION AND THE MEANING OF VEXATIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE: EVERGREEN INTERNATIONAL S. A. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.2
This case involved a collision between the container vessel Ever Glory and the car carrier Hual Trinita. The plaintiffs were the registered owners of the Ever Glory and the defendants were the owners and insurers of the cargo on the Hual Trinita. As part of the legal proceedings arising from the collision, the plaintiffs commenced a limitation action in Singapore against all persons having potential claims arising out of the collision. A decree of limitation was granted and a declaration that limited liability to $2,411,227.56 plus interest was made. The plaintiffs paid the limitation fund sum into the court.
Throughout, the defendants were informed of the limitation proceedings but did not participate in the action, challenge the decree or prove their claims against the limitation fund. The defendants went on to arrest the sister ship of Ever Glory, the Ever Reach, in Belgium. They then commenced proceedings in the Belgian courts where the plaintiffs would face a higher limit of liability. The Belgian courts also did not recognise the Singapore decree limiting liability and the limitation fund.
The plaintiffs applied in Belgium to set aside the arrest of the Ever Reach. They also applied to the Singapore courts for an anti-suit injunction to stop the defendants continuing their action in Belgium. Concurrently, the 4th to 74th defendants applied to have the order for service out of jurisdiction (of the application for the anti-suit injunction) set aside.
Belinda Ang J. first considered the broad principles involved in an application...