Judgment Header
Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330
Loading…
[2015] SGHC 330
General Division of the High Court of Singapore30 Dec 2015Suit No 848 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal No 269 of 2013)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 7 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“016] SGHC 230 & [2016] 5 SLR 1307. Valerie Thean JC said- [24] The approach to determining the applicable law governing the dispute at this interlocutory stage was discussed in Bunge SA v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330. The High Court held at [49]: In a stay application which is made at an interlocutory stage with only th”
“In the recent decision of Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 (“Bunge”), the evidence of an Indian-incorporated company, Varun, was crucial to the dispute. There was no indication that either of the parties had contacted Varun to ascertain if its officers were”
“The approach to determining the applicable law governing the dispute at this interlocutory stage was discussed in Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330. The High Court held at [49]:”
“nnection, I had already indicated in the course of the hearing of SUM 1273 and SUM 1298 that I agreed with the defendants’ counsel that the High Court’s judgment in Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 provided a complete answer to this “preliminary” objection. In that case, it was held that given the PTC”
“Before I leave this issue, I would refer to the case of Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 (“Bunge”), which further buttresses the conclusion I have reached on the significance of the place of performance of a party’s contractual obligation to the issue of determining the governing law of”
“ed, the court may treat the issue of the applicable law a neutral factor in stage one of the Spiliada test, leaving the matter to be settled at trial on the merits of the case (Bunge SA v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 at [49]).”
“. The Eleftheria factors remain both relevant and good law in Singapore when deciding whether to grant a stay application on the ground of forum non conveniens (see Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 at [35]). The Eleftheria factors are as follows:”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 848 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal No 269 of 2013)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-12-30
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.