DOCSLIB.ORG

The Break up of Commonwealth Private International Law in Relation to Forum Non Conveniens and Tort Choice of Law in Selected Commonwealth Jurisdictions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Break up of Commonwealth Private International Law in Relation to Forum Non Conveniens and Tort Choice of Law in Selected Commonwealth Jurisdictions THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND TORT CHOICE OF LAW IN SELECTED COMMONWEALTH JURISDICTIONS William Ton Su Hern, LL. B, B. C. L. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2006 Uhl Tee 'a ýVof Notf-ingham w tit ýVI ABSTRACT It is well known that in the early stages of legal development in Commonwealth jurisdictions, when these countries were still colonies of the British Empire, there was uniformity in their laws as the English common law was received by these countries and applied by their judiciaries with little or no modifications. As time passed, with the shift towards independence in these former British colonies, some Commonwealth countries have diverged from the English common law by providing for judicial solutions that are perceived to best fit their individual circumstances, values and needs. In other words, there has been a break up of Commonwealth common law. Whilst there has been much academic discussion on this phenomenon in relation to for example, tort and contract, hardly any has been written on private international law. Accordingly, it is the purpose of this thesis to address the paucity of academic writing on this subject matter by undertaking a comparative study of two areas of private international law, namely the doctrine of forum non conveniens and tort choice of law in Australia, Canada and Singapore, with the relevant English common law positions as the key reference point. Specifically, this thesis began by establishing the existence as well as the nature and extent of the break up of forum non conveniens and tort choice of law in our selected Commonwealth jurisdictions. It is then argued that one reason for this phenomenon is that there are differences in the judicial treatment of policies, concepts and other wider considerations relevant to these areas of private international law in these countries. Subsequently, the issue of how these jurisdictions should respond to this phenomenon was examined and we concluded that the prospects for the harmonisation of jurisdictional and tort choice of law rules at the global, regional and Commonwealth level has been largely unpromising. Accordingly, it is argued that the way forward is for our selected Commonwealth jurisdictions to develop their own rules on these areas of private international law with their own social, economic and political circumstances in mind. 1 PREFACE Many have helped and supportedme in the course of my research in writing this thesis. It is difficult to overstate my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor James Fawcett who introduced me to the topic of private international law during my undergraduate days. Without his supervision, constant support, encouragement and of course, his decision to take me on as his PhD student, this thesis would not have been completed. I would also like to thank the University of Nottingham for providing me with the substantial funding as well as the facilities necessary to undertake my comparative study. Thanks also goes to Professor Paul Roberts, Mr. Michael Bowman and Professor Peter Bartlett for their critical and helpful comments on the structure and methodology of my thesis. am also indebted to Professor Adrian Briggs and Mr Edwin Peel who continued my education in private international law after my time at the University of Nottingham. It is your lectures at the University of Oxford that has given me the inspiration for my doctoral research. I am grateful to my friends most notably, KJ Chew, Don Low and Chelvin Sng for their support and encouragement all this time. Lastly and most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, Dr Tong Teck Hwee and Lee Yeong, and my girlfriend, Melody for everything good in my life. To you all, I dedicate this thesis. The law is stated as at 1 August 2006, but it has been possible to include some material since that date. 11 CONTENTS Abstract i ............................................................................................................... Preface il ................................................................................................................ List Abbreviations ' of ......................... List Short Forms in the Thesis of used .............................................................. xix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 ................................................................................. I. OBJECTIVE OF THE THESIS: ANALYSING THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 1 ..................................................................................... 2. SCOPE OF THE THESIS 4 ................................................................................... 2.1 Selected international law 4 areas of private .................................................... 2.1.1 Forum 4 non conveniens ........................................................................ 2.1.2 Tort law choice of ............................................ 2.2 Selected Commonwealth jurisdictions 7 .......................................................... 111 2.2.1 Reasons for selecting Australia, Canada and Singapore as the Commonwealth jurisdictions for this thesis 8 .............................................. 2.2.2 Canada Australia: federations 8 and ........................................................ 3. STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS 11 .......................................... 3.1 Part I: What is the nature and extent of the break up of Commonwealth private international law in jurisdictions? 11 our selected ..................................................... 3.2 Part II: What are the explanations from the case law for the break up of Commonwealth private international law in our selected jurisdictions? 12 ............................................................................................................ 3.3 Part III: How should our selected jurisdictions react to the break up of Commonwealth international law? 17 private ............................................................. PART I WHAT IS THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN OUR SELECTED JURISDICTIONS? CHAPTER 2: THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS 20 ............................. 1. INTRODUCTION 20 ............................................................................................. iv 2. EXAMINING THE VARIOUS DIVERGENCES AND CONVERGENCES IN RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS 22 ............................................ 2.1. The 22 overall picture ................................................................................... 2.2. Structure the tests 24 of ............................................................................... 2.3. Formulation the tests 28 of ........................................................................... 2.4. Situations to the tests 31 which are applicable ................................................ 2.5. Factors taken into the tests 33 account under ................................................. 2.5.1. Connecting factors 33 ............................................................................ 2.5.2. Legitimate juridical to the 34 advantages parties .......................................... 2.5.3. Considerations justice 41 of ..................................................................... 2.5.4. Public interest factors 44 ........................................................................ 2.6. Weight to factors the tests 46 attached particular under .................................... 2.6.1. Choice law 47 of .................................................................................... 2.6.2. Delays 50 ............................................................................................ 2.7. Difficulty in the tests 53 satisfying ................................................................. 2.8. Forum in federation 54 non conveniens a ....................................................... V 2.8.1. Jurisdiction Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 55 of ....................................... 2.8.2.Service Execution ProcessAct 1992 60 and of ............................................ 3. EXAMINING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVEN/ENS 61 ................................................................................................ 4. CONCLUSIONS 63 ............................................................................................. CHAPTER 3: THE BREAK UP OF COMMONWEALTHPRIVATE INTERNATIONALLAW IN RELATION TO TORT CHOICE OF LAW 67 ............................................................... 1. INTRODUCTION 67 ............................................................................................. 2. EXAMINING THE VARIOUS DIVERGENCESAND CONVERGENCESIN RELATION TO TORT CHOICE OF LAW 68 ............................................................................. 2.1. Characterisation: foreign torts 68 unknown .................................................... 2.1.1. English law Singapore 69 common and ....................................................... 2.1.2. England: Part III the 1995 Act 70 of ............................................................ 2.1.3. Australia Canada 72 and .......................................................................... 2.2. Identifying the the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridging the Gap: Addressing the Doctrinal Disparity Between Forum Non Conveniens and Judgment Recognition and Enforcement in Transnational Litigation
    Bridging the Gap: Addressing the Doctrinal Disparity Between Forum Non Conveniens and Judgment Recognition and Enforcement in Transnational Litigation ALEXANDER R. Moss* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 210 1. CURRENT DOCTRINES OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ................................ 214 A. FORUM NON CONVENIENS ............................ 215 1. Introduction . ................................. 215 2. The Adequate Alternative Forum ................. 216 3. Private and Public Interest Factors ................ 217 4. Degree of Deference to Plaintiff's Choice of Forum .... 218 B. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS .................. 220 1. Introduction . ................................. 220 2. The Roots of the Current Doctrine ................ 221 3. Harmonization of Recognition & Enforcement Standards .................................. 223 C. THE DOCTRINAL GAP BETWEEN FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND JUDGMENT RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT .............. 225 II. ISSUES RAISED BY THE CURRENT GAP IN STANDARDS ............ 225 A. INADEQUACY OF THE "ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE FORUM" STANDARD . ...................................... 227 * Georgetown Law, J.D. 2017; Georgetown University, B.S.F.S. 2011. © 2017, Alexander R. Moss. I am extremely thankful to Professor David Stewart for his guidance and insight in helping me develop my topic and improve this Note over the course of the production process. Many thanks are also due to The Georgetown Law Journal's exceptional editors and staff, especially Allie Berkowitch, Spencer McManus, Elizabeth Janicki, Ryan Giannetti, and the Notes Committee, for all of their hard work and thoughtful suggestions along the way. Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful family and friends, who have been with me every step of the way during my law school experience, and without whom none of this would have been possible. 209 210 THE GEORGETOWN LAw JOURNAL [Vol. 106:209 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of the Theory of Dépeçage to Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2018-03-29 Application of the Theory of Dépeçage to Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts Karimi, Sahar Karimi, S. (2018). Application of the Theory of Dépeçage to Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary. AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/31771 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/106483 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Application of the Theory of Dépeçage to Upstream Oil and Gas Contracts by Sahar Karimi A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW CALGARY, ALBERTA MARCH, 2018 © Sahar Karimi 2018 Abstract Determination of the applicable law in upstream oil and gas contracts plays an important role with regards to the parties’ rights and liabilities. There are various approaches regarding the choice of applicable law and different theories have been expressed relating to choice-of-law provisions. This research explores one of these theories called Dépeçage in private international law and conflict of law. The theory of Dépeçage is a concept in private international law that refers to the process of cutting a case into individual issues whereby each issue is constrained to a different applicable choice-of-law analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Practical Suggestions on Defense Motions and Other Procedures Before Trial Jackson W
    [Vol. 40 Some Practical Suggestions on Defense Motions and Other Procedures Before Trial Jackson W. Chance* A ,mxARY objective of the defense trial lawyer should be to terminate the litigation successfully at the earliest possible stage of the litigation in a manner which will afford reasonable assurance of receiving favorable treatment in the event of an appeal. The accomplishment of this objective before trial on the merits is much to be desired. The law affords a variety of tools for the accomplishment of that end in appropriate cases. The prac- tical usefulness of some of these implements is the main burden of this paper. Some suggestions as to when one of these tools may work if another is out of order may be worthwhile. The practitioner starts with the premise that on the hearing of a de- murrer the court is bound by the facts alleged in the pleading and is not entitled to consider facts presented to it through the medium of an af- fidavit.' But should he stop with that rule? Or are there other means avail- able, in proper cases, to reach false allegations or facts not alleged in the complaint, either on demurrer or on motion and before trial on the merits? The answer to that question presents interesting possibilities to the prac- ticing attorney. 1. InitialProblem of Whether or Not to Make a PreliminaryMove The pretrial moves discussed in this paper are aimed primarily at vul- nerable complaints. To take advantage of such vulnerability by adjudica- tion before trial on the merits is the goal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Forum Non Conveniens in Illinois and Recent Legislation to Limit the Doctrine
    The IDC Monograph Andrew C. Corkery Boyle Brasher, LLC, Belleville David A. Warnick Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Chicago Michael D. Gallo Bruce Farrel Dorn & Associates, Chicago Donald P. Eckler Pretzel & Stouffer, Chartered, Chicago Adam C. Carter Esp Kreuzer Cores LLP, Wheaton The Evolution of Forum Non Conveniens in Illinois and Recent Legislation to Limit the Doctrine Recent developments regarding the doctrine of forum non conveniens over the past year have forced civil litigation practitioners to consider both the Illinois appellate courts’ evolving analysis of this doctrine as well as the potential for legislation attempting to eradicate intrastate forum non conveniens as an option for defendants and courts to consider when cases are filed in technically correct but wholly inconvenient forums within the state. The purpose of this Monograph is to educate the reader as to the long history and importance of the forum non conveniens doctrine and to a recent movement to have the Illinois legislature act to take away Illinois courts’ ability to transfer cases to more appropriate counties within the State. It is well-known that certain Illinois counties are viewed as more “plaintiff-friendly,” while others are viewed as more defense-oriented. Plaintiffs have the power to choose where to file their lawsuits within the rules and laws concerning venue and jurisdiction. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187, which allows for transfer or dismissal of cases pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, is a defendant’s check on the plaintiff’s unilateral choice, which ensures fairness and convenience to all parties. This rule has engendered a robust history of case law that continues to evolve as courts wrestle with the factors that make a county both technically correct and also fair and convenient to the parties, witnesses, jurors, and counties themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Full-Text
    [Vol. 11 2008] TOURO INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 23 OPTIMAL RULE -SELECTION PRINCIPLES IN ANGLO -AMERICAN CONTRACTUAL JURISDICTION Alan Reed* I. INTRODUCTION Dyspeptic individuals and corporate entities are frequently engaged in multistate litigation as a concomitant of the growing body of activity at an international and interstate level. Litigants, like moths to a flame, are increasingly drawn towards the adventitious benefits of suit before a U.S. Court, and have sought to invoke jurisdiction over non-forum residents. As a consequence the court system has striven manfully, but arguably in vain, to propagate effective substantive principles, which are distilled casuistically in a commercial arena to identify sufficient nexus between a forum state and defendant, satisfying the constitutional standards of due process. 1 A legitimate blue litmus paper template for this important venue resolution conundrum has been difficult to achieve. Interpretative problems are evident in the assimilation of relevant methodological principles. In this context it is substantive principles relating to personal jurisdiction that operate as the fulcrum for a court entering a binding judgment against an impacted party. 2 A defendant will be haled before an alien court to defend an action as a consequence of state level empowerment, through adoption of long-arm statutes. It is vital, however, that the seized court’s exercise of jurisdiction comports with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to *M.A. (Cantab.), LL.M. (University of Virginia), Solicitor and Professor of Criminal and Private International Law at Sunderland University. 1 See U.S. CONST . art. 1, § 10; Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Constr.
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General
    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2021 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. 11 January 2021 May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Justices of the Court of Appeal, Judges of the Appellate Division, Judges and Judicial Commissioners, Introduction 1. The past year has been an extremely trying one for the country, and no less for my Chambers. It has been a real test of our fortitude, our commitment to defend and advance Singapore’s interests, and our ability to adapt to unforeseen difficulties brought about by the COVID-19 virus. I am very proud of the good work my Chambers has done over the past year, which I will share with you in the course of my speech. I also acknowledge that the past year has shown that we have some room to grow and improve. I will outline the measures we have undertaken as an institution to address issues which we faced and ensure that we meet the highest standards of excellence, fairness and integrity in the years to come. 2. My speech this morning is in three parts. First, I will talk about the critical legal support which we provided to the Government throughout the COVID-19 crisis. Second, I will discuss some initiatives we have embarked on to future-proof the organisation and to deal with the challenges which we faced this past year, including digitalisation and workforce changes. Finally, I will share my reflections about the role we play in the criminal justice system and what I consider to be our grave and solemn duty as prosecutors.
    [Show full text]
  • Forum Non Conveniens and Antitrust Jeremy C
    University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 2000 | Issue 1 Article 11 Home is Where the Hurt Is: Forum Non Conveniens and Antitrust Jeremy C. Bates [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf Recommended Citation Bates, Jeremy C. () "Home is Where the Hurt Is: Forum Non Conveniens and Antitrust," University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2000: Iss. 1, Article 11. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2000/iss1/11 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Chicago Legal Forum by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Home Is Where the Hurt Is: Forum Non Conveniens and Antitrust by Jeremy C. Batest In 1996 a Netherlands Antilles corporation specializing in currency exchange, along with its New York affiliate, sued two English banks in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the banks had conspired to deprive the currency exchanger of banking services.1 The banks moved for dismissal for forum non conveniens,2 which the district court granted.3 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir- cuit affirmed the dismissal, noting that most of the allegedly an- ticompetitive conduct took place in England4 and that the true parties were English.5 In affirming, the Scond Circuit split with the Fifth Circuit6 and became the first court of appeals to uphold applying forum non conveniens to dismiss an international anti- trust suit.7 The circuits' disagreement arose out of tensions between principles of civil procedure and antitrust jurisprudence long es- tablished by the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019 | 3 About the Academy
    ANNUAL REPORT ACADEMY OF MEDICINE 2019 SINGAPORE Committed to specialist education and training since 1957 CONTENT ACADEMY OF MEDICINE, SINGAPORE The Academy 1 Master’s Message 2 The 2019-2020 Council 5 The Academy 5 Representation at Ministry of Health and Related Organisations 6 Year in Review 2019 7 Finance and Establishment Review Committee Events 8 Dinner & Dialogue with Senior Minister of State (Health) 9 AMS Chinese New Year Celebration 9 Formation of the Chapter of Pain Medicine Physicians 10 Induction Comitia 2019 10 Public Forum 2019 Sponsorships, Grants and Awards 11 Awards 11 Visiting Academicians 12 Visiting Lecturers 12 Travel Assistance 12 Letters of Support Deanery 13 In-Training Examinations 14 Diploma in Hospital Medicine 14 Mandatory Geriatric Medicine Modular Course 14 Master of Health Professionals Education, Singapore (MHPE-S) 14 2019 Intake (Unit One) and 2018 Intake (Unit Seven) 15 Self Learning Module (SLM) 15 CPD Bulletin 15 AMS Fellowship Training Programme 16 MOH Contract of Services for Healthcare Services 16 Dental Specialist Accreditation Assessment 16 Staff Registrar Scheme Office of Professional Affairs 18 Guidelines, Advisories & Consensus Committee (GACC) 21 Ad-Hoc OPA Activity – PDPA Awareness Talk 2019 21 Medical Experts Committee (MEC) 23 Faculty of Medical Experts (FME) Standing Committees 24 Membership 25 Joint Committee on Specialist Training 26 Publications Past Masters and Honorary Fellows List Our People 30 Staff List Finance Statements for the Financial Year Ended December 2019 COLLEGES AND
    [Show full text]
  • One-Way Ticket Home: the Federal Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and the International Plaintiff, 77 Cornell L
    Cornell Law Review Volume 77 Article 5 Issue 3 March 1992 One-Way Ticket Home: The edeF ral Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and the International Plaintiff Jacqueline Duval-Major Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jacqueline Duval-Major, One-Way Ticket Home: The Federal Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and the International Plaintiff, 77 Cornell L. Rev. 650 (1992) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol77/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ONE-WAY TICKET HOME: THE FEDERAL DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND THE INTERNATIONAL PLAINTIFF I INTRODUCTION Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine that allows a court to dismiss a case, although personal jurisdiction and venue are proper, when such a dismissal would serve the convenience of the parties and the ends ofjustice.I Although the development of sec- tion 1404(a) transfers has fundamentally limited forum non con- veniens, 2 the doctrine retains some vitality at the federal level when the alternative forum is a foreign court rather than another district court in the United States.3 Only defendants may invoke the doctrine of forum non con- 4 veniens, because plaintiffs have the original choice of forum. United States-based multinational corporations (MNCs) constitute the main group of defendants who currently benefit from the doc- trine.5 Frequently, MNCs are the defendants in actions by foreign 1 See generaily Paxton Blair, The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law, 29 COLUM.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Arbitration
    (2012) 13 SAL Ann Rev Arbitration 59 4. ARBITRATION Lawrence BOO LLB (University of Singapore), LLM (National University of Singapore); FSIArb, FCIArb, FAMINZ, Chartered Arbitrator; Solicitor (England and Wales), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore; Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University (Australia); Visiting Professor, School of Law, Wuhan University (China). Recourse against awards – Domestic arbitration Institutional rules operating as “exclusion agreement” 4.1 An arbitral award made under the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) (“AA”) may be appealed against on a question of law, upon notice to the other parties and to the arbitral tribunal. Such a right may nevertheless be excluded by agreement of the parties. The mere declaration by the parties that the award is intended to be “final and binding” is not of itself sufficient to constitute such an agreement: see Holland Leedon Pte Ltd v Metalform Asia Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 517 at [5]. Adoption of the institutional rules which excludes an appeal to court without specific reservation has the effect of an exclusion agreement: Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore vol 1(2) (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2011 Reissue) at para 20.126. 4.2 In Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd v Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2012] 4 SLR 837, the parties entered into a joint venture agreement which provides for all disputes arising out of the said agreement to be finally settled under the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) Rules of Arbitration 1998. Disputes arose and the plaintiff commenced arbitration to which the defendant lodged a counterclaim.
    [Show full text]
  • Steep Rise Ltd V Attorney-General
    Steep Rise Ltd v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 20 Case Number : Civil Appeal No 30 of 2019 Decision Date : 24 March 2020 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Tay Yong Kwang JA; Steven Chong JA; Woo Bih Li J Counsel Name(s) : Chan Tai-Hui, Jason SC, Tan Kai Liang, Daniel Seow Wei Jin, Victor Leong Hoi Seng and Lim Min Li Amanda (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the appellant; Kristy Tan, Kenneth Wong, Ng Kexian and Tan Ee Kuan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Steep Rise Limited — Attorney-General Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Duty of full and frank disclosure Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Enforcement of foreign confiscation order – Risk of dissipation 24 March 2020 Tay Yong Kwang JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction 1 On 22 August 2017, a Restraint Order was made by the High Court on the application of the Attorney-General (“the AG”) pursuant to s 29 read with para 7(1) of the Third Schedule of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MACMA”), restraining any dealing with the funds in the bank account of Steep Rise Limited (“the appellant”) in the Bank of Singapore (“the BOS Account”). Subsequently, the appellant applied to the High Court to discharge the order of court. The High Court Judge (“the Judge”) dismissed the application and made no order as to costs as the AG did not seek an order for costs. 2 The appellant then appealed against the Judge’s decision.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of the Common-Law Doctrine of Forum Non-Conveniens on the New York Statute Granting Jurisdiction Over Suits Against Foreign Corporations, 26 Fordham L
    Fordham Law Review Volume 26 Issue 3 Article 8 1957 The Effect of the Common-Law Doctrine of Forum Non- Conveniens on the New York Statute Granting Jurisdiction Over Suits Against Foreign Corporations Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation The Effect of the Common-Law Doctrine of Forum Non-Conveniens on the New York Statute Granting Jurisdiction Over Suits Against Foreign Corporations, 26 Fordham L. Rev. 534 (1957). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol26/iss3/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 26 Moreover, an opportunity which would othenvise be a corporate oppor- tunity, ceases to be such if the corporation is definitely unable to take advan- tage of it. 47 Thus, the financial inability of a corporation to avail itself of the particular opportunity is a valid defense in an action against the director. 48 Legal barriers, refusal of a third party to deal with the corporation,40 or any other circumstances which prevent the corporation from acting upon the op- portunity, may also be invoked as defenses. CONCLUSION Today, with modern corporate organization involving vast sums of capital, property, and various other assets, a director may well be tempted to act for himself and to the detriment of his corporation.
    [Show full text]