2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
10. A Judge of the Singapore High Court granted an injunction in respect of (a) on 3 December 2012 (“the Injunction”). The Appellants appealed against the Judge’s decision.
11. This note focuses on the Court’s consideration of the scope of “asset” under Section 12A(4) of the IAA, and only deals with other issues in the case briefly.
'''Judgment (Singapore Court of Appeal)'''
1.2. If the Singapore court has such power, whether the Injunction should be granted or upheld in the circumstances of this case.
a) Whether a Singapore Court has the power to grant the Injunction, particularly where the Injunction was sought against the government of a foreign sovereign State
7.3.1. The Court held that a lessee’s interest in land, including a right to occupy, use and enjoy land for a term, was precisely the sort of contractual right that is capable of coming within the meaning of “asset” for the purposes of Section 12A(4) – if the Injunction were set aside and the Appellants took over the Airport, the Respondent’s rights in respect of the Site would be destroyed.
b. Balance of Convenience – If the Singapore court has such power, whether the Injunction should be granted / upheld in the circumstances of this case.
8.4. The Respondents expressed willingness to provide a cross-undertaking for damages which might be awarded to the Appellant if it was later found that the Injunction should not have been granted. However, the Respondents did not propose to provide security to back up its’ cross-undertaking to the Appellants in respect of damages, on the ground that it would plainly be able to satisfy any adverse award of damages. The lack of evidence to substantiate the Respondents’ assertion that it would plainly be able to satisfy any adverse award of damages was a factor that weighed against the grant of the Injunction.
Jurisdictional Objections
