Case Study

Phua Chu Kang Ltd (PCK) is a leading commodity trading company headquartered in Singapore.

Crocodile Dundee Ltd (CD) is a company that processes, packs and sells soybeans from over 20 farms across Australia.

PCK purchased 100 metric tons of "Australian grown non-GMO (non-Genetically Modified) soybeans" from CD. The purchase was made under a CIF contract, goods to be shipped to Hong Kong from Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia, latest date of shipment, March 15, 2018.

Additional facts

An irrevocable letter of credit was issued by Merlion Bank in Singapore and confirmed by Kookaburra Bank in Sydney, Australia, for S$450,000 requiring the following documents:

• insurance certificate for S$450,000,
• clean bill of lading stating that the goods are in "apparent good order and condition"
• invoice for 100 metric tons of non-GMO soybeans at S$450,000, and
• an inspection certificate from anApproved Certifier appointed by Australian Organic Limited certifying that the soybeans are non-GMO

The soybeans were to be loaded on board the ship in Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia and a bill of lading was issued, shipment dated 15 March 2018. Additional facts

When the goods arrivedin Hong Kong, the soybeans were tested by a laboratory in Hong Kong and found to be genetically modified soybeans. PCK promptly emailed the laboratory results to CD, complaining of the non-conformity.PCK has proceeded to sue CD in the High Court of Singapore for breach of contract. CD has responded by applying for a stay of the Singapore proceedings on the ground that Australia would be the more appropriate forum, because site visits to farms in Australia will be required, and Australian expert witnesses will need to be called. In both Singapore and Australia, sudden surges in new strains of COVID-19 infections have meant that travel to both countries is similarly restricted. In Australia, anti-vaccination riots have taken place. Additionally, PCK's CEO is an Iranian citizen and afraid that PCK will not get a fair hearing in Australia because (i) Australia imposes economic sanctions on Iran, so the courts may be biased against him and; (ii) it is very inconvenient for him to travel to Australia. Finally, CD has been advised by its local Australian lawyers that if it can prove in Singapore proceedings that Singapore is clearly an inappropriate forum, it should be able to convince the Singapore Court to grant the stay.

Question 4 -

Taking all the above facts into consideration (as well the advice of CD's lawyers), discuss whether the Singapore High Court is likely to grant a stay of action in CD's application on the basis that Singapore is a forum non-conveniens, and what legal principles, facts and considerations will be taken into account in making its decision.In addressing the various issues, refer to the cases ofSpiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd[1987] AC 460 andJIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2010] SGCA 41.

(32 marks)