On character assassination, cross-border claims, and conflicts of law: part 1.

TORG is an American company. CSS is the Singapore-incorporated subsidiary of a Chinese company. Both companies sell laptop bags.

TORG and CSS apparently compete for business from Dell. Dell sells a lot of laptops, which presumably makes this big business.

TORG and CSS do not appear to be on friendly terms. In April 2024, TORG's parent company sued CSS's parent company in California.

3 days later, TORG's CEO sent a text message to one of Dell's procurement directors, informing him of the California litigation. CSS somehow found out about the text message.

We do not know the contents of the text message, but they were presumably offensive to CSS. This is a fairly safe conjecture, because...

...CSS decided to sue TORG and its CEO in Singapore for defamation.

So did TORG and its CEO immediately proceed to address the substantive merits of the defamation claim? Are they asserting that:
a) the words used were not defamatory;
b) one or more of the classic defences¹ apply; or that
c) CSS did not suffer any loss?

Well, not quite.

They first applied to the Singapore Court to halt the lawsuit...

...on the basis that the lawsuit should be heard in the United States instead.

--

Those of us who do cross-border commercial disputes would be familiar with the concept of "forum non conveniens". It's Latin for, literally, "an inconvenient forum".²

In simple terms, when:
- party A sues party B in country X;
- party B might ask the courts of country X to halt the lawsuit;
- on the grounds that it is actually the courts of country Y which should decide on the lawsuit.

Of course, party B may or may not succeed. It boils down to factors such as:
a) the personal connections of the parties and the witnesses;
b) the connections to relevant events and transactions;
c) the applicable law to the dispute;
d) the existence of proceedings elsewhere; and
e) the shape of the litigation.³

If party B succeeds in its application, party A may be forced to commence a new lawsuit in country Y.

--

Turning back to the present case, the High Court dismissed TORG and its CEO's application to halt the Singapore proceedings, and held that the lawsuit could go on in Singapore.⁴

So that's a victory for CSS...

...or is it?

--

In part 2, we'll explore some learning points for those of us who do cross-border commerce or transact with parties from overseas.⁵