Skip to content
laws.sgby aturio
Grounds publishedDecided 25 Nov 2015
Contents

High Court

PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others

Feedback & support

[2015] SGHC 301Case no. Suit No 542 of 2012 (Summonses Nos 3342 of 2015 and 4013 of 2015)3 paragraphs

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

  1. George Wei J:

  2. Costs

  3. [2] The plaintiff commenced the Singapore Action in 2012. Almost three years later, in early 2015, the plaintiff commenced a fresh action in Jakarta (“Jakarta Action”) against, inter alia, the third defendant and the parent company of the first defendant. In response to this development, the first and third defendants applied, in SUM 3342, for a final anti-suit injunction to restrain the plaintiff’s pursuit of the Jakarta Action against the third defendant and the parent company of the first defendant. This application was taken out on the basis that the plaintiff’s pursuit of two simultaneous and duplicative actions was vexatious and oppressive.

  4. [3] As there was reason to believe that the court in Jakarta may delve into the merits of the case prior to the hearing of the application for the final anti-suit injunction, the first and third defendants sought an interim anti-suit injunction (“the Interim Order”) to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the application for the final anti-suit injunction. This was the subject matter of SUM 3725. The application for the Interim Order was heard and granted on 4 August 2015.

  5. The arguments

  6. (a) The plaintiff’s failure to respond to a letter requesting the plaintiff to confirm that it would not take any further steps in the Jakarta Action pending the hearing of the application for the Final Order.

  7. (b) The plaintiff’s refusal to amend its statement of claim in the Jakarta Action so as to ensure that the court documents for the Jakarta Action were properly served on the third defendant in Singapore.

  8. Decision

  9. [12] First, whilst the facts of Beckkett are not on all fours with the present case, it was nevertheless wasteful and oppressive for the plaintiff to have commenced proceedings on the same/similar subject matter in two separate jurisdictions when it had clearly no good reasons for doing so. The applications for the Interim Order and the Final Order would not have been necessary but for the fact that the plaintiff sued in one place too many. I do not, however, place weight on the first and third defendants’ assertion that the plaintiff had breached the Interim Order because no material has been tendered in support of that assertion.