Datuk Hamzah bin Mohd Noor v Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj [2001] SGHC 281 Case Number : Suit 792/2000 Decision Date : 27 September 2001 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : MPH Rubin J Counsel Name(s) : Andre Arul (Arul, Chew & Partners) for the appellant/appellant; R Raj Singam and Gopinath Pillai (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent Parties : Datuk Hamzah bin Mohd Noor — Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj Conflict of Laws – Natural forum – Stay of proceedings – Whether foreign court a more appropriate forum – Place where underlying transaction and cause of action arose – Location of witnesses – Residence of disputing parties – Governing law and jurisdiction agreements – Backlog of cases in courts in foreign jurisdiction – Whether respondent member of royal family in foreign jurisdiction relevant – Sch 1 para 9 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) : Introduction In a writ filed in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, the plaintiff Datuk Captain Hamzah bin Mohd Noor, apparently a much-decorated businessman, resident in Malaysia, claims against Tunku Ibrahim Ismail Ibni Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj, the Crown Prince of Johor, Malaysia, a sum well in excess of US$8m allegedly for services rendered, loans and advances made and amounts expended by the plaintiff for and at the request of the defendant. From the statement of claim filed, it would appear that whatever agreements reached between the plaintiff and the defendant were all verbal. The defendant after entering appearance in this suit applied to the court to stay proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens. This contention by him was that the appropriate forum to try the plaintiff`s claim was either Malaysia or Indonesia and never Singapore. The defendant prevailed before the learned assistant registrar. The plaintiff`s appeal and further arguments before me were not successful for the reasons which follow. Tour d`horizon Before I set out the reasons for my decision, it would, perhaps be useful to state briefly the background facts as can be gathered from the plaintiff`s statement of claim and from the affidavits filed by parties in these proceedings. The plaintiff is a former Harbour Master in the State of Johor. He got along famously with the Johor Royal Household, at least until recently. His services and friendship did not go unnoticed and due recognition was given to him when he was conferred Johor`s third highest honour award of Setia Makhota Johor by His Royal Highness the Sultan of Johor on his birthday honour lists in 1984. When the Sultan of Johor became the King of Malaysia (`the Yang Dipertuan Agung `), the plaintiff was further honoured in 1987 by the King with Malaysia`s First Class Honour Award of Panglima Setia Diraja , an award which entitled him to the title Datuk . He states his residential address as 2A Jalan SS3/2, Taman Sentosa, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. The defendant is the eldest son of the Sultan of Johor and bears the royal title Tunku Mahkota Johor or TMJ. He is next in line and the heir to the throne of the State of Johor. He resides in a palace in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, known as the Istana Pasir Pelangi. In the statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, besides being a prince, is also a businessman and an investor in various commercial ventures for gain and profit. He claims that he was the defendant`s personally appointed and acknowledged representative in a number of commercial projects, ventures and investments in return for remuneration and payment of expenses to him. Quite a few projects were listed by him in this regard, chief amongst them was an oil and gas project in Indonesia which he calls the `Petrogas Project`. More shall be heard on this later. The plaintiff`s statement of claim is an extremely long and rambling 119-page (408 paragraphs) document. He sets out in it rather laboriously the various services rendered by him to the defendant from about September 1994; the promises made by the defendant and the sums disbursed by him for and at the request of the defendant. The breakdown of the plaintiff`s claim is as follows: 1. The sum of US$805,000.00 being the salary or remuneration due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff for work done and services rendered by the Plaintiff to the Defendant pursuant to the contract for service between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the rate of US$35,000.00 per month for 23 months from September 1994 to July 1996. 2. The sum of RM450,000.00 being the balance allowances due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff as agreed to by the Defendant and incorporated into the contract for service at the rate of RM10,000.00 per month for 45 months from January 1996 to September 1999. 3. The sum of US$5,000,000.00 being the lump sum money due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff as agreed to by the Defendant and incorporated into the contract for service. 4. The sum of US$1,000,000.00 being the lump sum money due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff as agreed by the Defendant and incorporated into the contract for service. 5. The sum of US$900,000.00 being the additional lump sum money due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff as agreed to by the Defendant and incorporated into the contract for service. 6. The sum of RM832,542.16 and the sum of US$140,966.00 being monies advanced by the Plaintiff on the Defendant`s behalf and on the Defendant`s instructions pertaining to the Petrogas Project and the Defendant`s various other matters and investments. 7. The sum of RM8,905.00 being the reimbursable expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in the performance of his duties for the Defendant with the Defendant`s authority and permission. 8. The sum of US$200,000.00 extended by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as a personal loan on or about 5 April 1995. 9. The sum of US$220,000.00 extended by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as a personal loan on 16 June 1995. The total amount of the claim is for US$8,300,966 and RM1,301,447.16. The pleaded facts and the affidavits filed by the parties suggest that sometime in November 1994, the plaintiff introduced the Petrogas Project to the defendant at the latter`s office at Mados Sdn Bhd, situated at Jalan Pasir Pelangi, Johor Bahru and subsequently arranged for the defendant to meet one Praptono Tjitrohupojo (`Praptono`), an Indonesian national, who is the president director and majority shareholder of an Indonesian corporation known as PT Usaha Putra Indonesia Petrogas (`UPG`). The upshot was UPG was given four technical assistance contracts (`TAC`) to explore, develop, produce and sell the oil and gas from four different oil and gas concessions in Indonesia which collectively constituted the Petrogas Project and in this regard the defendant agreed to and caused to be provided loans amounting to US$26.5m to the subsidiaries of UPG. In all this, the plaintiff claims that he acted as the defendant`s representative. The plaintiff further claims that a considerable amount of work was done by him for the defendant in relation to the defendant`s intended participation and subsequent involvement in the ventures mentioned. The plaintiff maintains that he actively participated in and attended several meetings relating to the defendant`s affairs including one held in the meeting room of the Raffles Marina Singapore, on 27 November 1994, for the finalisation of negotiations between the defendant and UPG, which culminated in the execution of the first of the four loan agreements. The details provided by the plaintiff in his statement of claim as to works carried out by him allegedly for and on behalf of the defendant and the personages he met are too long to be entered upon here. Suffice it, if it is said he made a number of trips to Singapore for meetings in connection with his purported brief. He claims that the defendant almost entirely depended on the team comprising the plaintiff, one of the defendant`s then legal advisors, Mr Andre Arul (who is curiously the current counsel for the plaintiff) and a few others to oversee the legal, economic and financial aspects of the transaction. The plaintiff also recounts in his statement of claim the pivotal role he played in the negotiations leading up to the finalisation of the four loan agreements mentioned. He sets out in detail the negotiations he conducted, all of them on behalf of and upon the instructions of the defendant, with various overseas financial institutions, advisers and investors including Prince Jefri of Brunei who in the result provided funds totalling US$45m in two tranches for the Petrogas Project. He mentioned that he also had to represent the defendant in negotiations with a number of energy corporations in many countries and arranged to incorporate five offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, collectively known as `Crown BVI` and two other companies in Malaysia, known as Crown Energy Holding Sdn Bhd (`Crown Malaysia`) and Luxury Marketing Sdn Bhd (`LMSB`) to safeguard the defendant`s interests in Petrogas Project as well as others. In addition, the plaintiff also met people at the highest levels of government and industry in Malaysia as well as in Indonesia. Prominent personalities he had met in this regard included Dato Seri Anwar, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia as well as General Try Sutrisno, the then Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia.