[2007] SGHC 137

“Ostensibly juxtaposed against the above is the High Court decision of Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co Ltd [2007] SGHC 137 (“Exxonmobil”). The court noted that Rickshaw Investments had held that compellability was potentially an important factor. The defendant’s vice-president filed an”

“The plaintiffs had relied on Exxon Mobil Asia Pacific Pte ltd v Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co Ltd [2007] SGHC 137 for their argument that it was not enough for the defendant to merely depose on affidavit, without more, that William and his proposed witnesses would not cooperate if the trial was held in Singapore”

“sed beyond the stage of the initiating process (see also Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian [2006] 2 SLR 281 at [33] and Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co Ltd [2007] SGHC 137 at [18]). In The Hooghly Mills Co Ltd v Seltron Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR(R) 757 (“The Hooghly Mills”), for e”

“In Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co Ltd [2007] SGHC 137 (“Exxonmobil”) at [17], the High Court noted as follows:”