Singapore High Court dismissed application for a permanent anti suit injunction

In the case STS Seatoshore Group Pte Ltd v. Wansa Commodities Pte Ltd SGHC 266 [2024] the High Court denied the motion for a permanent anti-suit injunction. The Applicant ("STS") and the Respondent ("Wansa") had entered into a contract of affreightment that included an arbitration clause. This clause stipulated that English law would be applied, and that any disputes between the parties would be resolved through arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the terms of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration. STS was successful in obtaining an interim anti-suit injunction via an ex parte action, which will remain in effect until the application is resolved in its whole. The fact that there was a violation of the arbitration agreement was not contested in any regard. However, due to the specific circumstances surrounding this case, the High Court concluded that STS had prolonged the beginning of the proceedings in Singapore for an excessive amount of time, and as a result, comity was not in favour of awarding an anti-suit injunction. In particular, there had been various sets of court procedures in Guinea, as well as multiple judgments and court orders that had been issued in Guinea. The application for a permanent anti-suit injunction was rejected by the High Court, which also released the interim injunction that had been applied for. 

In its reasoning the High Court applied the legal principles from Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 732. The High Court stated that it is important to be cautious when considering anti-suit injunctions, because they indirectly interfere with the foreign court proceedings involved. 

Even in cases involving foreign court procedures undertaken in violation of an arbitration agreement, comity concerns are pertinent where there is a delay in filing an application for anti-suit relief. Particularly important is the degree to which the delay has facilitated the advancement of the foreign court proceedings; the more developed the proceedings, the more comity concerns would be. This is because an antisuit injunction will defeat all previous attempts and squander the legal resources used in the international court processes. 

Based on these principles, the High Court decided to deny the application for an anti-suit injunction. First, STS's unreasonable delay in commencing the case has caused the Guinean court proceedings to reach an advanced stage. Given the enormous amount of Guinean court time and expense that would potentially be wasted if the permanent anti-suit injunction were granted, respect for the functioning of the Guinean legal system requires the exercise of discretion not to grant such an injunction. The High Court stated that STS should have simultaneously sought anti-suit relief in the Singapore court. STS should not have waited for the Guinean courts to reject its jurisdictional objections before approaching the Singapore court. STS said the Guinean proceedings were "not far advanced", but the High Court disagreed. Since there were ongoing appeals, the proceedings were sufficiently advanced to be heard.