Qompass Voyage Limited v APACPAY PTE LTD

[2023] SGHCR 20 High Court Registrar 24 November 2023 HC/OC 495/2023 ( HC/SUM 2878/2023 )

7 cases cited (6 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court Registrar
Decided	24 November 2023
Judge	Perry Peh
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws
Counsel	Braddell Brothers LLP, IRB Law LLP, Esther Lim, Glenn Ang, Joshua Chow

Source: [2023] SGHCR 20, High Court Registrar, decided 24 November 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings Conflict of Laws — Choice of jurisdiction — Exclusive

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws

Judges (1)

Perry Peh Delivered

Counsel (5)

Braddell Brothers LLP Firm IRB Law LLP Firm

Esther Lim Counsel for the claimant

Glenn Ang Counsel for the claimant

Joshua Chow Counsel for the defendant

Parties (2)

APACPAY Pte Ltd Defendant

Qompass Voyage Ltd Claimant

Case Significance

Qompass Voyage Ltd v APACPAY Pte Ltd [2023] SGHCR 20 is grounds of decision issued by Assistant Registrar Perry Peh in the General Division of the High Court on 24 November 2023, arising from Summons No 2878 of 2023 in Originating Claim No 495 of 2023. The defendant sought a stay or dismissal of the action under s 12(1) of the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016, relying on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of England and Wales, while simultaneously denying any contractual relationship with the claimant. The decision examines whether those inconsistent positions defeat the defendant's ability to show a good arguable case that the clause exists and governs the dispute, and the Assistant Registrar dismissed the summons. The grounds cite 7 authorities and reference the Choice of Court Agreements Act and the Penal Code.

Summary

APACPAY Pte Ltd, a Singapore digital-payment company, applied to stay or dismiss Qompass Voyage Limited's claim under the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016, relying on an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring the courts of England and Wales while simultaneously denying any contractual relationship. The Assistant Registrar held these inconsistent positions deprived the defendant of any factual basis to establish a good arguable case that the clause existed, dismissed the application, and ordered the defendant to pay $9,000 in costs.

What was Qompass Voyage Ltd v APACPAY Pte Ltd [2023] SGHCR 20 about?

It concerned a stay application under s 12(1) of the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring the courts of England and Wales, which Assistant Registrar Perry Peh dismissed in Originating Claim No 495 of 2023.

Why was the jurisdiction challenge complicated in [2023] SGHCR 20?

The defendant relied on an English exclusive jurisdiction clause while denying any contractual relationship with the claimant, and the court examined whether those inconsistent positions undermined a good arguable case that the clause existed and governed the dispute.