Best Soar = company in British Virgin Island = shipowners – Silvia Ambition

Praxis = Singapore company = bunker seller and supplier

Greatwin = time charterer of Silvia Ambition

Searights = physical bunker supplier supplying bunker fuel to Silvia Ambition.

Bunker contract between = Praxis and Greatwin

Bunker sum not paid, Praxis arrested the Silvia Ambition at Beirut, Lebanon on 17 Mar 2016.

11 Apr 2016: Silvia Ambition was released after Best Soar furnished security.

1 Aug 2016: Best Soar commenced the present action in Singapore against Praxis:

Plaintiff (P) = Best Soar Defendant (D) = Praxis

P seeks the following remedy:

a) A declaration that Best Soar is not liable to Praxis under the bunker contract;

b) Damages to be assessed;

c) An injunction to restrain Praxis from pursuing its claim under the bunker contract against Best Soar and/or the vessel; and

d) D return the security provided by P.

24 Aug 2016, D filed to stay the present action in Singapore basis:

a) Forum non conveniens and/or lis alibi pendens; and

b) Case management, pending the outcome of the Lebanon proceedings.

When the case went to the Assistant Registrar (AR), the latter ordered the action in Singapore to be stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens. P appealed against the AR’s decision to the Singapore High Court.

Chua Lee Ming J uphold the AR’s decision basis Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 2-stage test (“the Spiliada Test”):

1. The court will first determine whether, prima facie, there is some other available forum that is “clearly or distinctly more appropriate” for the case to be tried. If the court concludes that there is prima facie more appropriate alternative forum, the court will ordinarily grant a stay unless there are circumstances by reason of which justice requires that a stay should nonetheless not be granted.

2. The legal burden was on Best Soar to show why the action in Singapore should not be stayed even though Lebanon has been shown to be the prima facie more appropriate forum for the dispute. The main consideration at this stage is whether substantial justice can be obtained in the foreign court.