Views
Mareva injunctions under Singapore law
Whether the Singapore court has the jurisdiction or power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings was recently considered by the Singapore High Court in PT Gunung Madu Plantations v Muhammad Jimmy Goh Mashun [2018] SGHC 64. Both plaintiff and defendant were Indonesian and the claim related to alleged breaches of duties which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had obtained leave to serve the writ in Indonesia on the defendant. The defendant thereupon applied, inter alia, to set aside service of the writ and for a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over him. In response, the plaintiff applied for a Mareva injunction against the defendant in respect of the defendant’s assets in Singapore. The plaintiff had, after the Singapore action was filed, commenced actions in Malaysia and Indonesia covering much the same allegations against the defendant.
Under Singapore law (excluding actions commenced in the Singapore International Commercial Court where different rules apply), leave to serve the writ on the defendant abroad may be granted at the court’s discretion if the plaintiff is able to show: (i) a good arguable case that the claim falls within one of the heads of Order 11 of the Rules of court; (ii) a serious issue to be tried on the merits; and (iii) Singapore is forum conveniens. On the facts, the parties were Indonesian and the alleged misconduct occurred in Indonesia. As the plaintiff was unable to satisfy the third requirement, the court discharged the order for service out the writ out of the jurisdiction. Other orders made in pursuant of the order for service out were also set aside.
On the Mareva injunction, the Singapore High Court adopted the majority approach in the Privy Council decision of Mercedes Benz v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284. Lord Mustill had distinguished between two questions, to be approached sequentially: first, the question of whether the court has in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; secondly, the question of whether the court has a power to grant a Mareva injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing of his local assets pending the conclusion of foreign court proceedings. Valid service is required to found in personam jurisdiction under Singapore law. In PT Gunung Madu Plantations, as in Mercedes Benz itself, as the answer to the first question was in the negative, the second question did not arise.
Justice Woo was cognisant of the difficulties caused by hewing to the traditional approach of viewing Mareva relief as strictly ancillary to local proceedings but stated ‘that is a matter that has to be left to a higher court or to the legislature’ (para 54). His Honour referenced developments in the UK and Australia, where freestanding asset freezing orders in aid of foreign proceedings are permitted. Further, the Singapore International Arbitration Act was amended in 2010 to give the court the power to grant an interim injunction in aid of a foreign arbitration. It is likely that legislative intervention will be required to develop Singapore law on this issue.
The judgment may be found here: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/23135-pt-gunung-madu-plantations-v-muhammad-jimmy-goh-mashun
Nori Holdings: England & Wales High Court confirms ‘continuing validity of the decision in West Tankers’ under Brussels I Recast
Earlier this month, the English High Court rendered an interesting decision on the (un-)availability of anti-suit injunctions in protection of arbitration agreements under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (No 1215/2012). In Nori Holdings v Bank Otkritie [2018] EWHC 1343 (Comm), Males J critically discussed (and openly disagreed with) AG Wathelet’s Opinion on Case C-536/13 Gazprom and confirmed that such injunctions continue to not be available where they would restrain proceedings in another EU Member State.
Read more
Double Counting the Place of the Tort?
In common law Canada there is a clear separation between the question of a court having jurisdiction (jurisdiction simpliciter) and the question of a court choosing whether to exercise or stay its jurisdiction. One issue discussed in the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Haaretz.com v Goldhar (available here) is the extent of that separation. Does this separation mean that a particular fact cannot be used in both the analysis of jurisdiction and of forum non conveniens? On its face that seems wrong. A fact could play a role in two separate analyses, being relevant to each in different ways.
Justice Cote, with whom Justices Brown and Rowe agreed, held that “applicable law, as determined by the lex loci delicti principle, should be accorded little weight in the forum non conveniens analysis in cases where jurisdiction is established on the basis of the situs of the tort” (para 90). She indicated that this conclusion was mandated by the separation of jurisdiction and staying proceedings, which extends to each being “based on different factors”. So if the place of the tort has been used as the basis for assuming jurisdiction, the same factor (the place of the tort) should not play a role in analyzing the most appropriate forum when considering a stay. And since the applicable law is one of the factors considered in that analysis, if the applicable law is to be identified based on the connecting factor of the place of the tort, which is the rule in common law Canada, then the applicable law as a factor “should be accorded little weight”.
In separate concurring reasons, Justice Karakatsanis agreed that the applicable law “holds little weight here, where jurisdiction and applicable law are both established on the basis of where the tort was committed” (para 100). In contrast, the three dissenting judges rejected this reason for reducing the weight of the applicable law (para 208). The two other judges did not address this issue, so the tally was 4-3 for Justice Cote’s view.
As Vaughan Black has pointed out in discussions about the decision, the majority approach, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that if jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s residence in the forum then the defendant’s residence is not a relevant factor in assessing which forum is more appropriate. That contradicts a great many decisions on forum non conveniens. Indeed, the court did not offer any supporting authorities in which the “double counting” of a fact was said to be inappropriate.
The majority approach has taken analytical separation too far. There is no good reason for excluding or under-weighing a fact relevant to the forum non conveniens analysis simply because that same fact was relevant at the jurisdiction stage. Admittedly the court in Club Resorts narrowed the range of facts that are relevant to jurisdiction in part to reduce overlap between the two questions. But that narrowing was of jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens remains a broad doctrine that should be based on a wide, open-end range of factors. The applicable law, however identified, has to be one of them.
News
Volume 2, Issue 1 of UCC Law Journal 2022
I was recently alerted to the publication of Volume 2, Issue 1 of UCC Law Journal 2022, which contains articles on Ghanian law. One article in the journal is focused on our beloved subject of private international law:
The 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters is a product of the Judgments Project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The Hague Judgment Convention has the advantage of providing business partners with a simple, efficient, and predictable structure with regards to the recognition and enforcement regime; as well as reducing related cost. More specifically, the convention fosters predictability and certainty in international commercial relations by enabling international commercial partners to be precisely informed of the grounds on which the decision of the court of one contracting state will be recognised or enforced in the territory of another contracting state. The Convention offers a wide range of jurisdictional filters for the purposes of recognition and enforcement of judgments from Contracting States. This article discusses the modern and innovative grounds of international competence introduced by the Hague Convention and its potential impact on the grounds of international competence for Ghana if Ghana ratifies the convention. The article recommends the ratification of the 2019 Hague Judgment Convention as it would be of enormous benefit to Ghana whose grounds of international competence when it comes to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments seems antiquated and confined only to residence, submission and more controversially, the presence of the judgment debtor in the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
The article is freely accessible, or open access. The article is based on the author’s LL.M dissertation that was undertaken at the University of Johannesburg under the supervision of Professor Jan Neels.
Chinese Supreme People’s Court Issued New Judicial Interpretation on Hierarchical Jurisdiction on Foreign-Related Disputes
LIN Jidong, Wuhan University Institute of International Law
- Background
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter “SPC“) issued “SPC’s Regulation on Several Matters Concerning the Jurisdiction of Foreign-Related Disputes” (hereinafter “Regulation 2022“),[1] which will enter into force on 1st January 2023. The Regulation focuses on hierarchical jurisdiction in cross-border litigation, although its title does not explicitly say so. According to SPC, the Regulation responds to the new circumstance of open-up after the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. It has great value in protecting the right of parties, both foreign and domestic, making litigation more convenient and improving the quality and efficiency of the trial of foreign-related civil and commercial disputes.
- Main Content
The Content can be divided into different categories according to the goals of Regulation 2022.
?1?Convenience and Efficiency
One of the most important goals of Regulation 2022 is to improve the efficiency of trial and bring convenience to the parties. To achieve this goal, Regulation 2022 has rearranged the hierarchical jurisdiction. Regulation 2022 generally authorises all the grass-roots courts to hear foreign-related disputes (Art. 1) and limits the jurisdiction of intermediate and higher courts (Art. 2 & Art. 3).
Initially, the hierarchical jurisdiction of foreign-related disputes was regulated by the 2002 SPC’s Regulation on Several Matters Concerning the Jurisdiction of Foreign-Related Litigations (hereinafter “Regulation 2002”).[2] Under Regulation 2002, only a few intermediate courts and grass-root courts were authorised to hear foreign-related disputes. In the past 20 years, the SPC has authorised more and more intermediate courts to hear foreign-related disputes according to the applications of higher courts. Nowadays, most intermediate courts have the jurisdiction to hear foreign-related disputes. But still, only a few grass-roots courts have such jurisdiction.
Such an arrangement has some adverse impacts. Firstly, the parties would have to sue in intermediate courts. Ordinarily, there is only one intermediate court in one city. Such an arrangement means that all the citizens would have to sue in one court instead of suing in their local grass-roots courts. This would inevitably bring inconvenience to the parties. Secondly, the intermediate courts may also overload by a large number of cases, which would decrease the efficiency of trials. In the past 20 years, the number of foreign-related cases has significantly increased. In 2022, the number of cases seized by courts of the first instance has exceeded 17 thousand. Such a circumstance not only increases the pressure on the judges but also decreases the efficiency of trials. It should also be noted that according to Art. 277 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law, different from domestic trials, foreign-related trials would not be subject to the statutory time limit. Thus, parties in foreign-related disputes may have to wait longer to receive judgments.
The Regulation 2022 enables nearly all grass-root courts to hear cross-border disputes, which brings convenience to the parties and reduces the burden of intermediate courts.
?2?Quality and Professionalism
Regulation 2022 also takes measures to ensure and improve the quality and professionalism of foreign-related trials. These efforts stem from the achievement of the judicial system reform, especially the establishment of the judge quota system. The judge quota system re-selects competent judges from the existing judges. Only limited judges who passed the re-selection would be authorised to hear the trial based on their qualification, professionalism, specialisation, and experience. The reform enhanced the overall ability of the judges and increased the percentage of judges with the knowledge base and competence to hear foreign-related disputes.
The efforts to improve the quality and professionalism in Regulation 2022 could be divided into two perspectives. On the one hand, Regulation 2022 reserves the centralised jurisdiction, which originated from Regulation 2002, with some adjustments (Art. 4). On the other hand, Regulation 2022 makes clear that foreign-related disputes should be heard in a specialised tribunal or collegial panel (Art. 5).
a. Centralised Jurisdiction
The centralised jurisdiction centralises jurisdiction of foreign-related disputes #in intermediate courts. Traditionally, centralised jurisdiction would have impact in both hierarchical and territorial aspects. From the hierarchical aspect, the centralised jurisdiction could deprive the grass-roots courts of jurisdiction to hear foreign-related disputes. From the territorial aspect, the centralised jurisdiction allows the appointed intermediate court to hear the dispute across its administrative division. Assume that Province A consists of five cities: City A, B, C, D, and E. If courts in City A were to be appointed to exercise the centralised jurisdiction, then the courts in City A would have jurisdiction over all foreign-related disputes, including those cases which courts in City B, C, D and E should hear.
The centralised jurisdiction could improve the quality of the trials. Firstly, the centralised jurisdiction could ensure that some experienced and better-trained judges would hear the cases. In general, foreign-related disputes are more complex than domestic disputes and thus would pose more challenges to the judges. The courts appointed to exercise centralised jurisdiction usually have better-trained judges and, therefore, would be more competent to hear foreign-related disputes. Furthermore, there may be a huge gap in the quantities of foreign-related disputes among different courts. The centralised jurisdiction would also let those experienced courts hear the disputes and improve the quality of trials. Secondly, the centralised jurisdiction would increase the consistency of the judgements. Courts in PRC are not bound by precedents. The centralised jurisdiction allows the same courts or tribunal to hear similar cases in one region to achieve the consistency of judgements. Thirdly, the centralised jurisdiction would reduce local protectionism. The centralised jurisdiction may prevent local government’s intervention in trial and create a relatively neutral place for the parties by moving the local party out from their home court.
However, the centralised jurisdiction may negatively affect efficiency. Thus, Regulation 2022 tries to strike a balance between professionalism and efficiency. Firstly, centralised jurisdiction is an exception that applies in limited situations instead of being a general rule. Centralised jurisdiction may only be granted if higher courts consider it necessary and acquire SPC’s approval. Secondly, the impact of centralised jurisdiction is limited to the territorial aspect and would no longer prejudice the hierarchical jurisdiction. According to the SPC, there would be only two categories of centralised jurisdiction: the centralised jurisdiction of grass-roots courts and the centralised jurisdiction of intermediate courts. The centralised jurisdiction of grass-roots courts means that one authorised grass-roots court would have jurisdiction over all the first instance foreign-related cases in the region subject to its prior intermediate court’s jurisdiction. The other type of centralised jurisdiction is the centralised jurisdiction of intermediate courts. An authorised intermediate court could hear all the cases in the region subject to its prior high court’s jurisdiction, including trial of first instance and appeal from grass-roots courts.
b. Specialised Tribunal
Regulation 2022 makes clear that the foreign-related dispute should be heard in a specialised tribunal or collegial panel (Art. 5). This provision tries to improve the professionalism of the trial by centralising all the cases into a tribunal or collegial consisting of experienced and specialised judges in the court. In practice, several courts have already established such a tribunal. However, since Regulation 2022 authorises all the grass-roots courts to hear foreign-related disputes, it is necessary to ensure that each court is properly staffed to establish an appropriate division of responsibility of the tribunals.
Such a requirement was also prescribed in previous judicial interpretations. However, those interpretations were not as definite and broad as the present one. For instance, the SPC’s Notice of 2017 on the Clarification of the Hierarchical Jurisdiction of the First Trial of the Foreign-Related Disputes and Several Issues concerning Belongings of Cases has listed several cases be heard by a specialised tribunal or collegial panel.[3] The SPC’s Notice of 2017 on Several Issues concerning Belongings of Judicial Review of Arbitration also prescribed that the judicial review of arbitration should be subject to a specialised tribunal or collegial panel that takes charge of trials of foreign-related disputes.[4] Compared with these previous regulations, the provision in Regulation 2022 is more general and has a broader coverage.
?3?Compatibility between Regulations
Regulation 2022 also establishes some rules to achieve compatibility between different regulations.
Firstly, Regulation 2022 reforms the correspondent rules in foreign-related disputes to be compatible with the newly reformed hierarchical jurisdiction of domestic disputes. The standard of high courts’ jurisdiction to hear the first trial of foreign-related disputes is now the same as their jurisdiction to hear domestic cases. The Regulation also raises the standard of intermediate courts’ jurisdiction to hear the first trial of foreign-related disputes and reduces the difference in this aspect with domestic cases. These would prevent the situation that most domestic cases would be heard in grass-roots courts while foreign-related cases would be heard in intermediate courts, even though the latter’s value is lower.
Secondly, Regulation 2022 has a clear scope of applications. In the past, the scope of application of Regulation 2002 is vague. Regulation 2002 applies to several listed types of foreign-related cases but keeps silent on its application to the other types of foreign-related cases. Regulation 2002 also excludes its application to “trade disputes occurred in border provinces and foreign-related real estate disputes”. However, there was not a uniform understanding of the scope of these two types of cases. In contrast, Regulation 2022 generally applies to all foreign-related disputes with some explicit exclusions, including maritime disputes, foreign-related IP disputes, foreign-related environmental damages disputes and foreign-related environmental public litigation (Art. 6). The maritime disputes would be subject to Maritime Court as a specialised court in China, and its hierarchical jurisdiction would be governed by Maritime Litigation Procedure Law. The hierarchical jurisdiction of the other three types of disputes is subject to their respective judicial interpretation of SPC.
?4?Predictability
Regulation 2022 enhances the predictability of the hierarchical jurisdiction. Before the new Regulation, SPC has made many individual authorisations for centralised jurisdiction of intermediate or grass-roots courts. However, due to the differences in the levels of economic development, the authorisations vary between regions. In some regions, all grass-roots courts maybe competent to hear foreign-related disputes; in other regions, only a few intermediate courts would have jurisdiction. It causes confusion in practice and the parties have to do research on hierarchical jurisdiction in each specific region to ensure they bring the case to the right court.
After the release of Regulation 2022, all the grass-roots courts would generally have jurisdiction to hear foreign-related disputes. The centralised jurisdiction would be limited in territorial aspect and would be publicized in advance, according to paragraph 2, Art. 4 of Regulation 2022. Regulation 2022 will abolish previous regulations and serve as a comprehensive guideline on hierarchical jurisdiction of foreign-related disputes (Art. 9). Regulation 2022 will enhance the predictability of the parties.
- Conclusion
Chinese hierarchical jurisdiction in foreign-related disputes has been one of the most unclear and confusing matters in practice. Regulation 2022 has made significant progress in hierarchical jurisdiction. It improves the convenience and easy access to justice in foreign-related disputes, and balances other interests including professionalism and predictability. It manifests China’s determination to continue opening up in the current era by providing a more user-friendly judicial environment to parties in the international trade and commerce.
[1] Supreme People’s Court’s Regulation on Several Matters Concerning the Jurisdiction of Foreign-Related Disputes, [2022] Fa Shi No. 18.
[2] Supreme People’s Court’s Regulation on Several Matters Concerning the Jurisdiction of Foreign-Related Litigations, [2002] Fa Shi No. 5.
[3] Supreme People’s Court’s Notice of 2017 on the Clarification of the Hierarchical Jurisdiction of the First Trial of the Foreign-Related Disputes and Several Issues concerning Belongings of Cases, [2017] Fa No. 359, para. 2.
[4] Supreme People’s Court’s Notice of 2017 on Several Issues concerning Belongings of Judicial Review of Arbitration, [2017] Fa No. 152, para. 2.
HCCH Monthly Update: November 2022
Conventions & Instruments
On 1 November 2022, the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention entered into force for Greece. The Convention currently has 14 Contracting Parties. More information is available here.
On 11 November 2022, Malta signed the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, during the first meeting of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Convention. The Convention will enter into force for Malta further to the deposit of its instrument of ratification, in accordance with Article 53 of the Convention. More information is available here.
On 14 November 2022, Botswana deposited its instrument of accession to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, 1993 Adoption Convention, and 2007 Child Support Convention. With the accession of Botswana, the Child Abduction Convention now has 103 Contracting Parties. It will enter into force for Botswana on 1 February 2023. For the Adoption Convention, with the accession of Botswana it now has 105 Contracting Parties. The Convention will enter into force for Botswana on 1 March 2023. Finally, following the accession of Botswana 45 States and the European Union are bound by the Child Support Convention. It will enter into force for Botswana on 16 November 2023. More information is available here.
Meetings & Events
On 8 November 2022, the HCCH’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific hosted the workshop “HCCH Conventions Supporting Transnational Litigation in Civil or Commercial Matters”, in partnership with the Department of Justice of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR. The workshop was held during Hong Kong Legal Week 2022, in celebration of the tenth Anniversary of the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. More information is available here.
From 9 to 11 November 2022, the First Meeting of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention was held in The Hague, attended by over 100 participants, in person and via videoconference, representing Contracting Parties, HCCH Members, and Observers. The meeting resulted in the adoption of over 70 Conclusions & Recommendations, which provide guidance to (prospective) Contracting Parties on a wide range of issues relating to the implementation and practical operation of this Convention. More information is available here.
Vacancies
Applications are now open for the position of Head of Human Resources (part-time, 75% or less). The deadline for the submission of applications is 9 December 2022. More information is available here.
These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.