Newsdesk

Exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJC) are common contractual provisions where parties agree to a specific jurisdiction to resolve their disputes, should they arise out of or in connection with the agreement. At common law, where a claim is commenced in Singapore in breach of an EJC in favour of another jurisdiction, the Singapore Courts apply a two-step “strong-cause” test to determine if the claim ought to be stayed in favour of that foreign jurisdiction.

This position has now changed, since the promulgation of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements on 1 October 2005 (Hague Convention), and its ratification by Singapore on 2 June 2016 by way of the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 (CCAA). Whereas under the common law the Courts retain a discretion to refuse a stay despite an EJC, under the Hague Convention, the Court is mandated to grant the stay should the requisite conditions be fulfilled. This has significant ramifications on Singapore court proceedings involving EJCs in favour of Hague Convention Contracting States.

The Singapore High Court has, in a recent case of 6DM (S) Pte Ltd v AE Brands Korea Ltd and others and another matter [2021] SGHC 257 (6DM v Asahi) made some important observations on the application of the CCAA. This note explores the key findings made by Justice Mavis Chionh in 6DM v Asahi.