Humpuss Sea Transport v PT Humpuss: Service of Process Out of Jurisdiction

In Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another, the Singapore High Court addressed the issue of service of process out of jurisdiction. Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd, sought repayment of loans and a declaration regarding transactions with PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another. The defendants challenged the validity of the service of the court documents in Indonesia. The court dismissed the defendant's application, holding that the service was valid under Singapore's Rules of Court.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendants' application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on service of process out of jurisdiction. The court determined the validity of service on Indonesian defendants.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)PlaintiffCorporationApplication grantedWon
PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBKDefendantCorporationApplication dismissedLost
AnotherDefendantOtherApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven Chong JJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Probin Stephan DassShook Lin & Bok LLP
Chan Junhao, JustinShook Lin & Bok LLP
Chan Ming Onn DavidShook Lin & Bok LLP
Tan Aik ThongShook Lin & Bok LLP
Hing Shan Shan BlossomDrew & Napier LLC
Allen Lye Xin RenDrew & Napier LLC
Sushil Sukumaran NairDrew & Napier LLC
Raymond Lam Kuo WeiDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff, Humpuss Sea Transport, is in compulsory liquidation.
  2. Defendants, PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another, are Indonesian companies.
  3. Plaintiff commenced a suit against the defendants seeking repayment of loans.
  4. Plaintiff obtained leave to serve the writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendants in Indonesia.
  5. Service was effected by a Junior Associate with a firm of solicitors practicing in Indonesia.
  6. The defendants argued that the service was not duly served on them.
  7. The defendants contended that the service was not in compliance with r 4(2) because service through a private agent was not a method of service authorized for the service of any originating process by Indonesia.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another, Suit No 896 of 2014 (Summons No 5543 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 144
  2. Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Chow YL Carl, , [1987] SLR(R) 281
  3. ITC Global Holdings Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) v ITC Ltd and others, , [2011] SGHC 150
  4. SRS Commerce Ltd and another v Yuji Imabeppu and others, , [2015] 1 SLR 1
  5. ITC Global Holdings Pte Ltd (under judicial management) v ITC Limited and Others, , [2007] SGHC 127
  6. Fortune Hong Kong Trading Ltd v Cosco Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd, , [2000] 1 SLR(R) 962
  7. Ma Boon Lan v UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd (previously known as Kay Hian Pte Ltd) and another appeal, , [2013] 4 MLJ 848
  8. Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd and others, , [2008] 3 SLR(R) 856
  9. Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others, , [2013] 1 SLR 636
  10. Consistel Pte Ltd and another v Farooq Nasir and another, , [2009] 3 SLR(R) 665
  11. BNP Paribas (formerly known as Banque National De Paris) v Polynesia Timber Services Pte Ltd and another, , [2002] 1 SLR(R) 539
  12. Golden Ocean Assurance Ltd and World Mariner Shipping S A v Christopher Julian Martin and others, , [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215
  13. Kuah Kok Kim v Chong Lee Leong Seng Co (Pte) Ltd, , [1991] 1 SLR(R) 795
  14. Abela and others v Baadarani and another, , [2013] 1 WLR 2043
  15. Phillips and another v Symes and others (No 3), , [2008] 1 WLR 180
  16. Q & M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh Kiat, , [2005] 4 SLR(R) 494
  17. Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suit, , [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453
  18. The “Kapitan Temkin”, , [1998] 2 SLR(R) 537
  19. Pacific Assets Management Ltd and others v Chen Lip Keong, , [2006] 1 SLR(R) 658
  20. Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Hugo Boss AG, , [2003] 3 SLR(R) 469
  21. Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd, , [2014] 4 SLR 500
  22. Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA, , [1979] AC 210

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff ordered to be placed in compulsory liquidation.
Plaintiff commenced Suit No 896 of 2014 against the first and second defendants.
Plaintiff obtained leave to serve its writ of summons and statement of claim on the defendants in Indonesia.
Kristian Takasdo effected service of the Court Documents on both defendants.
M/s Drew & Napier LLC entered an appearance on behalf of both defendants.
Defendants filed Summons No 5543 of 2014, seeking a declaration that the Court Documents had not been duly served on them.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Service of Process Out of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that the service was valid under Singapore's Rules of Court.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Compliance with Rules of Court
      • Conflict with Foreign Law

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Repayment of $110 million in loans
  2. Declaration that transactions be set aside

9. Cause of Actions

  • Debt Claim
  • Setting Aside Transactions at an Undervalue

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • International Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Chow YL CarlHigh CourtYes[1987] SLR(R) 281SingaporeDiscusses the service of process out of jurisdiction and whether service by a private agent is authorized.
ITC Global Holdings Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) v ITC Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 150SingaporeDiscusses whether improper service out of jurisdiction is a nullity or a mere irregularity capable of cure.
SRS Commerce Ltd and another v Yuji Imabeppu and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 1SingaporeEndorses the view that improper service out of jurisdiction constitutes a mere irregularity which is capable of cure.
Attorney-General v Shadrake AlanHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 445SingaporeCited regarding the resolution of conflicting authorities.
ITC Global Holdings Pte Ltd (under judicial management) v ITC Limited and OthersHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 127SingaporeCited regarding the proposition that failure to comply with mandatory provisions in r 4(2) rendered the service a nullity which could not be cured.
Fortune Hong Kong Trading Ltd v Cosco Feoso (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 962SingaporeDiscusses the purpose of service of process and whether the method of service employed is sufficient to bring to the attention of the defendant such proceedings.
Ma Boon Lan v UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd (previously known as Kay Hian Pte Ltd) and another appealMalaysian Court of AppealYes[2013] 4 MLJ 848MalaysiaDiscusses the interpretation of the word 'may' in the context of service of process out of jurisdiction.
Afro Continental Nigeria Ltd v Meridian Shipping Co SA (The Vrontados)UnknownYes[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 241EnglandCited regarding the exercise of sovereignty within the country in which service is effected.
Ferrarini SpA and others v Magnol Shipping Co Inc (The “Sky One”)UnknownYes[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 238EnglandDiscusses that the methods of service provided in O 11 r 6(3) of the UK RSC 1965 are not exclusive.
M. N. Mootoo Rahman Chetty V. M. A. R. Mootoo Rahman ChettyUnknownYes[1927] SSLR 13SingaporeCited regarding service had always been permitted to be effected through private means.
In the Matter of the Estate of Choo Eng Choon, Deceased; Tan Siok Yang & Ors v Choo Ang CheeUnknownYes[1934] 1 MLJ 182SingaporeCited regarding service had always been permitted to be effected through private means.
Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 856SingaporeUpholds an order granting leave for substituted service to be effected on defendants resident in Switzerland.
Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and othersHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 636SingaporeDiscusses the service of foreign court documents and whether it can be effected via Indonesian solicitors.
Consistel Pte Ltd and another v Farooq Nasir and anotherHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 665SingaporeDiscusses that service out of jurisdiction was not intended to derogate from the general requirement for personal service.
BNP Paribas (formerly known as Banque National De Paris) v Polynesia Timber Services Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 539SingaporeDiscusses that non-compliance with Practice Note No 1 of 1968 of the Malaysian High Court does not have the force of law in Malaysia so non-compliance with its terms did not automatically render the service invalid.
Golden Ocean Assurance Ltd and World Mariner Shipping S A v Christopher Julian Martin and othersCourt of AppealYes[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215EnglandDiscusses the service of a writ and whether the failure to serve the writ was an omission so serious that it fell outside the ambit of O 2 r 1 and was thus incapable of cure.
Kuah Kok Kim v Chong Lee Leong Seng Co (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 795SingaporeCited regarding errors so fundamental or serious that the court ought not to exercise its discretion under [O 2] r 1 to remedy it.
Abela and others v Baadarani and anotherSupreme CourtYes[2013] 1 WLR 2043EnglandDiscusses the restriction in r 6.40(4), which reads, “[nothing] in any court order authorises or requires any person to do anything which is contrary to the law of the country where the claim form or other document is to be served.”
Phillips and another v Symes and others (No 3)UnknownYes[2008] 1 WLR 180EnglandDiscusses the curing of irregularities in service of process.
Q & M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh KiatHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 494SingaporeCited regarding international comity.
Basil Shiblaq v Kahraman SadikogluUnknownYes[2004] EWHC 1890 (Comm)EnglandCited regarding international comity.
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suitHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 453SingaporeDiscusses that a plaintiff’s jurisdictional title to sue a foreign defendant depends upon the claim falling within the circumstances authorized by the Rules as well as upon the writ being served in the manner prescribed by the Rules.
The “Kapitan Temkin”High CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 537SingaporeDiscusses that questions of jurisdiction must be decided by the lex fori, particularly where jurisdiction is conferred by statute.
Pacific Assets Management Ltd and others v Chen Lip KeongHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 658SingaporeDiscusses that matters relating to service of process are procedural, which are eminently matters for the lex fori.
Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v Hugo Boss AGHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 469SingaporeCited regarding the burden of proof.
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 500SingaporeCited regarding the grant of leave for service out of jurisdiction.
Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Distos Compania Naviera SAHouse of LordsYes[1979] AC 210EnglandCited regarding international comity.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 332, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Service of process
  • Out of jurisdiction
  • Rules of Court
  • International comity
  • Compulsory liquidation
  • Private agent
  • Indonesian law
  • Civil Procedure Convention
  • Originating process
  • Manner of service

15.2 Keywords

  • Service
  • Jurisdiction
  • Singapore
  • Indonesia
  • Rules of Court
  • Process
  • International

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Service out of jurisdiction90
Civil Practice75
Judgments and Orders30
Asset Recovery25
Inherent Power of the Court20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Jurisdiction