HomeJournalGeneral LawCross -Border Jurisdiction Challenges in Singapore Courts :  Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Explained

Cross -Border Jurisdiction Challenges in Singapore Courts :  Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Explained

Cross -Border Jurisdiction Challenges in Singapore Courts :  Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Explained

  • April 26, 2026
  • Posted by: Shashank Kumar
  • Category: General Law
No Comments

Forum Non Conveniens (hereinafter referred as “FNC”) is a legal doctrine allowing courts to dismiss a case if it determines that another forum or another court is more appropriate for resolving the dispute between the parties. This concept, originating from English common law, is increasingly significant in globalized legal systems where jurisdictional issues are common. In Singapore, FNC is a well-established principle that plays a critical role in determining the most suitable forum for litigation.

Courts exercise this doctrine to prevent forum shopping and to ensure that cases are heard in jurisdictions with the closest connection to the dispute. The objective is not merely convenience in a literal sense, but the appropriateness of the forum in terms of legal, factual, and practical considerations. In a globalised economy where contracts, parties, and events often span multiple jurisdictions, the doctrine acts as a balancing mechanism. It avoids parallel proceedings, inconsistent judgments, and unnecessary burdens on judicial resources.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens has been defined within the seminal case decision of Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd (1987) as the basic principle where “a stay will only be granted on the ground of forum non conveniens where the court is satisfied that there is some other available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum for the trial of the action, i.e. in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice.”[1]

In the Singapore Courts, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that there exists another forum which is “clearly or distinctly more appropriate” for the trial of the action. Courts consider several connecting factors, including:

  • Location of parties and witnesses
  • Governing law of the dispute
  • Place where the cause of action arose
  • Availability of evidence
  • Existence of related proceedings in another jurisdiction

The emphasis is not on identifying a better forum in abstract terms, but one that has the most real and substantial connection to the dispute.

If the defendant satisfies the first stage, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that justice nonetheless requires the case to be tried in Singapore. This may arise where: The plaintiff would be deprived of a legitimate juridical advantage or there is a risk of injustice in the alternative forum Or the alternative forum is unavailable or ineffective.

While deciding the cases, the court undertakes a fact-sensitive analysis by examining connecting factors such as where the cause of action arose, the governing law of the dispute, the location of parties, witnesses and evidence, and whether there are parallel proceedings elsewhere. The objective is to identify the forum with the most real and substantial connection to the case, rather than one that is merely more convenient. Courts are cautious not to give weight to mere tactical advantages, focusing instead on whether refusing jurisdiction would lead to genuine prejudice.

FEW LANDMARK CASES OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS

  1. Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460[2]

Derived from this case is the Spiliada Test which requires the court to take all factors into consideration in identifying the appropriate forum in which the case may be tried, taking the interests of parties and ends of justice into account. It is therefore divided into two stages: the first part of it requires an analysis of all factors that connect the dispute with the various competing jurisdictions, and the second part is where there are circumstances by reason of which justice requires that a stay should not be granted.

Following the case decision, the Court of Appeal (CA) confirmed that in deciding whether Singapore is forum non conveniens, the applicable test is the Spiliada Test. Additionally, the CA had also affirmed that the factors which are normally considered under the Spiliada Test (such as personal connections, connections to events and transactions, applicable law etc.) continue to remain as relevant and significant as before.

The CA held that the mere presence of the SICC should not result in an “unprincipled jurisdictional grab resulting in the Singapore courts’ refusal to grant a stay in all cross-border commercial cases”. It emphasised where parties argue that “the possibility of a transfer to the SICC weighs in favour of an exercise of jurisdiction by the Singapore courts, [this] must be grounded in specificity of argument and proof by evidence. A plaintiff must articulate the particular quality or feature of the SICC that would make it more appropriate for the dispute to be heard in Singapore by the SICC, as well as prove that the dispute is of a nature that lends itself to the SICC’s capabilities”

In considering the possibility of a transfer to the SICC, the court must also consider whether the requirements for a transfer under the Rules of Court are likely to be met; namely, the claims are of an “international and commercial nature”, the parties do not seek any relief in the form of, or connected with, a prerogative order, and the High Court deems it more appropriate to be heard in the SICC (Order 110, Rules 7 and 12).

  1. JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 391[3]

The Singapore Court of Appeal applied the two stage test set out in the seminal House of Lords decision (the Spiliada case) in determining that Indonesia was the more appropriate forum for the parties disputes. Within this case, the Court of appeal set out five indicators for consideration at the first stage of the Spiliada test:

  1. The personal connections of the parties and the witnesses to the competing fora;
  2. The connections between relevant events and transactions to the competing fora;
  3. The law applicable to the dispute;
  4. The existence of parallel proceedings elsewhere (ie, lis alibi pendens); and
  5. The “shape of the litigation”, which includes the manner in which the claim and the defence have been pleaded.

Therefore, to successfully obtain a stay, the case established that it is not enough for the applicant to merely show that Singapore is notthe natural forum.

  1. Rappo v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal [2017] SGCA 27[4]

Within this case provides a degree of reassurance that the Singaporean courts will continue to apply a principled approach to the question of jurisdiction, weighing the potential benefits of the SICC alongside other relevant considerations. The decision arose from two appeals against the decision of the High Court judge who dismissed the Appellants’ respective applications for a stay of proceedings in Singapore. Four key issues arose on appeal to the CA from the High Court:

  1. Whether the Respondents had complied with the High Court’s condition that they discontinue the Monaco Civil Proceedings;
  2. Whether the Appellants were entitled to run a forum election argument concurrently with a forum non conveniens argument;
  3. Whether Singapore was forum non conveniens; and
  4. Whether the proceedings in Monaco were lis alibi pendens.

Upon these conditions for the stay, the CA found that the Respondents had complied and that the Appellants were entitled to argue cumulatively that the Respondents should be put to forum election; and that Singapore is forum non conveniens.

Subsequent case laws following these judgements:

  1. Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel A SYMPHONY (IMO No. 9249324) v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel SEA JUSTICE (IMO No. 9309514) [2024] SGHC 37[5]

The issue arising from this case is whether the plaintiff should be permitted to retain the security provided for ADM 61 notwithstanding the forum non conveniens stay of the Singapore action, the defendant’s constitution of a limitation fund in the PRC, and the plaintiff’s participation in ongoing limitation and liability proceedings in the PRC.

  1. Luckin Coffee INC v Interactive Digital Finance Limited & 2 Ors [2024] SGHC(A) 7[6]

The issues from this case include:

  • a declaration that the Singapore courts have no jurisdiction against Luckin;
  • an order to set aside the leave granted to the Claimants to serve the Originating Claim on Luckin in the Cayman Islands;
  • further and/or in the alternative, an order that the Singapore action against Luckin be stayed because of a lack of jurisdiction by the Singapore courts; or
  • an order that the Singapore action against Luckin be stayed on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
  1. Tan Wei Heng, Kelvin & Anor v Tok Beng Tong & Anor [2023] SGHC 352[7]

Using the documents provided and all stages of the Spiliada test, the Judge found in favour of the appeal for the proceedings in OC 385 to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens. This is because he considered that Malaysia is clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum for the trial of OC 385.

  1. Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors[2023] SGHCR 12[8]

The decision made in this case was based on the Defendant’s failure to discharge their legal burden under the first stage of the Spiliada analysis. Therefore, the Stay applications are to be dismissed.

  1. CXG & Anor v CXI & 2 Ors [2023] SGHC 244[9]

The claimant filed a Leave Application on the ground that it was not appropriate for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction to hear it as Singapore is not the proper forum. However, in the context of the enforcement of their domestic interim measures, the FNC considerations do not apply in determining whether the High Court is the appropriate court to hear the Leave Applications under O 6 r 12(4)(b) of the ROC 2021. Therefore, the judge dismissed the Stay Applications with costs as he determined that it is appropriate for the High Court to hear the Leave Application.

  1.  Tania Rappo v Accent Delight International LTD & Anor [2023] SGCA 22[10]

This case has been used alongside with the Rappo case in many cases, including the ones mentioned, from which it may therefore be considered as a landmark case.

  1. VibrantGroup Limited v Tong Chi Ho & Anor [2022] SGHCR 8[11]

In applying all stages of the Spildia test to consider the proper forum issue, including case law from Rappo and Tania Rappo v Accent Delight International LTD & Anor, the Judge found that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that Singapore is the proper forum for its dispute with the 3rd Defendant.

Therefore, based on the arguments and evidence put forward by the Plaintiff, the Judge did not see any circumstances for which justice requires the Singapore courts to exercise jurisdiction despite not being the prima facie natural forum.

  1. Kuswandi Sudarga v Sutatno Sudarga [2022] SGHC 299[12]

Although it was not necessary for the judge to decide on the issue of forum non conveniens, in apply the Spiliada Test, case law from Rappo, and spotting the mistakes within the plaintiffs and defendants arguments upon the issue, he concluded that Singapore was the more appropriate forum in any event.

  1.  Allianz Capital PArtners GMBH, Singapore Branch v Andress Goh [2022] SGHC 266[13]

Having considered the Spiliada test and the appropriate case law, the Judge found the choice of German law expressed in cl 8.9 of the LTIP was indeed a significant connecting factor which pointed towards Germany as the appropriate forum. Therefore, Germany was clearly more appropriate than Singapore for the hearing of the present dispute.

  1. TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited & Anor v UD Trading Group Holding PTE. LTD. & Anor [2021] SGHCR 10[14]

This judgement concerns an application seeking a stay of court proceedings in Singapore on the ground of forum non conveniens, where the applicant, who is a co-defendant alleged to have assigned to the plaintiffs a right to enforce a corporate guarantee against another party, is not the subject of any substantive claim in the action.

Using the Spilada test, the Judge dismissed the application as since the monetary claim set out in the Particulars of Claim is unsustainable as it stands there seems no point in granting a stay in favour of Russia. For such a claim regarding English Law, there is no natural forum, not because several factors point to different jurisdictions but because the claim itself is bad.

  1. SINOPEC International (Singapore) Private Limited v Bank of Communications [2021] SGHC 245[15]

One of the issues within this case included whether the Suit should be stayed on grounds of forum non conveniens. However, the Judge dismissed the Stay Application.

  1. Bunge SA & Anor v Shrikant Bhasi [2020] SGCA 94[16]

The fact that the BHC proceedings have been withdrawn avoids any tension that could potentially have arisen from parallel proceedings in Singapore and India. Additionally, bearing in mind the provisos in the Singapore EJ clauses that expressly waive forum non conveniens, we find that AOPL has not demonstrated strong cause from which they were required to provide.

Therefore, the court affirmed, for different reasons, the Judge’s refusal to set aside the service out order for the Negative Declaration Claim; but reversed her decision to stay this claim in favour of India.

  1.  Phillpe Emanuel Mulacek v Carlo Giuseppe Civelli [2020] SGCA 59[17]

In this case, both appeals were dismissed in considering the significance of the previous Judge’s refusal of the anti-suit injunction and order to stay Mulacek’s counterclaim on forum non conveniens grounds was conditional upon the respondents’ undertaking to discontinue the Singapore suits.

Therefore, the Judge found that Justice is better served in this case by having all litigants in a single forum, and such an objective should prevail over the weight of any countervailing considerations.

  1.  Recovery Vehicle 1 PTE LTD v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal [2020] SGCA 107[18]

One of the issues within this case was whether Singapore is the forum conveniens to try the dispute. The previous judgement considered that given that Singapore law governed the issue of Waiver, and as the Liquidators had applied to set aside the Waiver in Singapore, the Judge held that in the round, Singapore was the proper forum for the trial of the dispute.

However, the court in this case was of the view that Senegal is the forum conveniensto try the dispute and dismissed RV1’s appeal in CA 31 as they found that the Sulphur Contracts are governed by Senegalese law.

  1. Raffles Education Corporation Limited & 2 Ors v Shantanu Prakash & Anor [2020] SGHC 83[19]

The Judge dismissed the Defendant’s Stay Application with costs to the Plaintiff. This is because, under the first stage of the Spiliada test, the Defendants bore the burden of showing that there is clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum for the trial of the action from which the judge was not satisfied that they had done so. Due to this, the Judge found no need to consider the second stage of the Spiliada test and, thus, dismissed the applications.

Therefore, Forum Non-Conveniens in Singapore is not merely procedural—it is strategic. The doctrine ensures that disputes are heard in the most appropriate forum while balancing fairness, efficiency, and international comity. India-International Law Firm was pleased to assist in matters where the crucial question of forum non-conveniens was discussed.

Article Written by Shravani Sharma, Advocate, India-International Law Firm

[1] [2021] Sghcr 10, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHCR_10.

[2] Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd, United Kingdom House of Lords https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8ca60d03e7f57ecd7c9.

[3] JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2010] SGCA 41, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2010_SGCA_41.

[4][2017] Sgca 27, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/s/2017_SGCA_27.

[5] [2024] Sghc 37, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHC_37.

[6] [2024] Sghc(A) 7, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2024_SGHCA_7.

[7] [2023] Sghc 352, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_352.

[8] [2023] Sghcr 12, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHCR_12.

[9] [2023] Sghc 244, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGHC_244.

[10] [2023] Sgca 22, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2023_SGCA_22.

[11] Supreme Court Judgments, (Nov. 30, 2022), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/Home/Index?filter=SUPCT&yearOfDecision=2022&sortBy=Score¤tPage=1&sortAscending=False&searchPhrase=forum%20non%20conveniens&verbose=False.

[12] [2022] Sghc 299, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGHC_299.

[13] [2022] Sghc 266, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGHC_266.

[14] Supreme Court Judgments, (Dec. 10, 2021), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/Home/Index?filter=SUPCT&yearOfDecision=2021&sortBy=Score¤tPage=1&sortAscending=False&searchPhrase=forum%20non%20conveniens&verbose=False.

[15] [2021] Sghcr 10, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHCR_10.

[16] [2020] Sgca 94, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGCA_94.

[17] [2020] Sgca 59, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGCA_59.

[18] Supreme Court Judgments, (Sept. 30, 2020), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/Home/Index?filter=SUPCT&yearOfDecision=2020&sortBy=Score¤tPage=1&sortAscending=False&searchPhrase=forum%20non%20conveniens&verbose=False.

[19] [2020] Sghc 83, (Jan. 16, 2024), https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGHC_83.