Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Perry Peh |
| Charges / claim | Conflict of Laws, Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | FC Legal Asia LLC, Patrick Ong Law LLC, Chu Hua Yi, Goh Jia Jie, Kimberly Lim, Patrick Ong Kok Seng |
Source: [2023] SGHCR 12, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHCR 12 is a reserved judgment of AR Perry Peh in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 16 August 2023 in Originating Claim No 163 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 1517 and 1518 of 2023). The claimant is Chang Chee Kheo, and the three defendants are Fatfish Investment Partners Pte Ltd, Fatfish Group Limited and Fatfish Capital Limited, who applied to stay the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens, contending that Malaysia is the more appropriate forum. The judgment considers whether the court is limited to the affidavit facts and whether an arbitration agreement can give rise to a connecting factor to the seat of arbitration.
[2023] SGHCR 12 explained
Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 12) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 16 August 2023. It is categorised under Conflict of Laws and Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHCR 12 about?
Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHCR 12) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Conflict of Laws — Natural forum” and “Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHCR 12 consider?
The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2023] SGHCR 12?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHCR 12 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The defendants, three Fatfish companies, applied to stay a claim by Malaysian citizen Chang Chee Kheo to recover monies loaned under three promissory notes, arguing Malaysia was the more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens. Applying the Spiliada analysis, the Assistant Registrar found the governing law and arbitration clauses pointed to Singapore as the more appropriate forum, held the defendants had not discharged their burden at the first stage, and dismissed the stay applications.
What was Chang Chee Kheo v Fatfish Investment Partners [2023] SGHCR 12 about?
It concerned applications by three Fatfish companies before AR Perry Peh to stay Originating Claim No 163 of 2023 on forum non conveniens grounds, contending Malaysia was the more appropriate forum, with judgment reserved and delivered on 16 August 2023.
What questions did [2023] SGHCR 12 raise?
The court considered whether it is limited to the affidavit facts in ascertaining personal connections to a competing forum, and whether an arbitration agreement can give rise to a connecting factor vis-a-vis the jurisdiction identified as the seat of the arbitration.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (18)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHCR 12)