International SOS v George: Non-Compete Clause & Service of Writ Dispute
In International SOS Pte Ltd v Overton Mark Harold George, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the setting aside of a writ of summons. International SOS sought to restrain Dr. George from practicing in Beijing due to a non-competition clause in his employment contract. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing improper service of the writ. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the defendant had not taken a step in the proceedings that would bar him from challenging the court's jurisdiction under Order 12 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over a non-compete clause. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the defendant did not take a step in proceedings before challenging jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International SOS Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Overton Mark Harold George | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Writ of Summons Set Aside | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- International SOS sought to restrain Dr. George from practicing in Beijing.
- Dr. George was previously employed by International SOS and had signed an employment contract with a non-competition clause.
- International SOS alleged that Dr. George breached the agreement by working for a competitor in Beijing.
- The plaintiffs obtained an order for the writ to be served in New Zealand, but service was not effected.
- A copy of the writ and claim was handed to Dr. George by a Chinese lawyer in China on 4 June 2001.
- Dr. George applied under O 12 r 7 of the Rules of Court to dispute the jurisdiction of the court.
5. Formal Citations
- International SOS Pte Ltd v Overton Mark Harold George, Suit 514/2001, [2001] SGHC 226
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Writ and claim handed to the defendant by a Chinese lawyer in China. | |
| Allen & Gledhill entered appearance on behalf of the defendant. | |
| Plaintiffs applied for an injunction and summary judgment. | |
| Allen & Gledhill requested sight of the plaintiffs' application for service of the writ. | |
| Allen & Gledhill informed the Registrar of their intent to seek an adjournment. | |
| Application heard by Justice Kan; defendant given three weeks to file an affidavit. | |
| Defendant applied under O 12 r 7 of the Rules of Court to dispute the court's jurisdiction. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant had not taken a step in the proceedings that would bar him from applying under O 12 r 7 to dispute the court's jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Improper service of writ
- Taking a step in proceedings
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on the breach of contract issue, as the primary issue was jurisdiction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Enforceability of non-competition clause
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rendell v Grundy | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1895] 1 QB 16 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the extent of a waiver depends on the nature of the irregularity. |
| Zalinoff v Hammond | Chancery Division | No | [1898] 2 Ch 92 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to whether filing affidavits constitutes taking a step in proceedings. |
| Turner & Goudy v McConnell | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 2 All ER 34 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to whether filing an affidavit to challenge a summary judgment application constitutes taking a step in proceedings. |
| Turner & Goudy v McConnell | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 898 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to whether filing an affidavit to challenge a summary judgment application constitutes taking a step in proceedings. |
| Binning Bros (in liquidation) v Thomas Eggar Verrall Bowles | N/A | No | [1998] 1 All ER 409 | N/A | Distinguished on the facts. |
| Williams v The Society of Lloyd`s | N/A | No | [1994] 1 VR 274 | N/A | Distinguished on the facts. |
| County Theatres and Hotels v Knowles | N/A | No | [1902] 1 KB 480 | N/A | Distinguished on the facts. |
| Esal (Commodities) v Mahendra Pujara | N/A | No | [1989] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 479 | N/A | Distinguished on the facts. |
| Ford`s Hotel Co v Bartlett | N/A | No | [1896] AC 1 | N/A | Distinguished on the facts. |
| Roussel-Uclaf v GD Searle & Co | N/A | Yes | [1978] RPC 747 | N/A | Cited for the principle that opposing an interlocutory injunction is an act of self-defense. |
| Obikoga v Silvernorth | N/A | Yes | The Times, 6 July 1983 | N/A | Cited for the principle that applying to discharge an ex parte Mareva injunction does not constitute taking a step in the proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| O 10 r 1(3) Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 12 r 6 Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 12 r 7 Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Non-competition clause
- Service of writ
- Jurisdiction
- Step in proceedings
- Order 12 Rule 7
- Interim injunction
15.2 Keywords
- non-compete
- writ
- jurisdiction
- Singapore
- civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Jurisdiction | 80 |
| Injunctions | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Jurisdiction
- Contract Law