Welton International Enterprises Pte. Ltd. and others v Averis Pte. Ltd. and others

Three claimants, Welton International Enterprises Pte Ltd and Kito Investments Pte Ltd (Singapore companies) and their parent Abornes International Inc (a Marshall Islands company), sued eight defendants in Originating Claim No 926 of 2024. The companies were asset-holding vehicles set up on the instructions of the late Mirabror Usmanov, an Uzbekistan national who died on or around 15 March 2019. His heirs later divided his Abornes shares, and his granddaughter Dinara, now the majority shareholder, was not disputed to be the driving force behind the suit. The defendants included Averis Pte Ltd and Interis AG, corporate service providers linked to two Swiss individuals, Andreas and Felix; three Singapore-resident nominee directors, Tong, Chuah and Pang; and Mirabror's son Jahangir.

The claimants alleged that Jahangir, with the other defendants, orchestrated a scheme to siphon off the companies' shares in Uzbekistan companies (Ezgu Niyat, Saxovat and Savdogar Bank) to himself or entities he allegedly controlled. They sued for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, knowing receipt and conspiracy. The defendants denied wrongdoing, saying in part that the disposals were made by Uzbekistan persons acting under powers of attorney, some signed by the heirs themselves. An assistant registrar stayed the action on the ground that Singapore was forum non conveniens, set aside the order permitting service out of jurisdiction on Interis, Andreas and Jahangir, and also granted a case management stay pending proceedings in the Marshall Islands (Civil Action 526). The claimants appealed all three decisions.

1. Whether Singapore was forum non conveniens, so that the action should be permanently stayed in favour of Uzbekistan.
2. Whether the order for service out of jurisdiction should be set aside because Singapore was not the proper forum or because of material non-disclosure.
3. Whether a case management stay should be granted pending Comina's appeal in Civil Action 526 in the Marshall Islands.

On forum, the court assessed each claim separately. The parties' connections were neutral. Key non-party witnesses, including the other heirs and the attorney holders, were in Uzbekistan and could not be compelled in Singapore. Applying the substance test, the court found the alleged conspiracy arose in Uzbekistan: on the claimants' own case it was directed from there, the shares were in Uzbekistan companies and were transferred under powers of attorney held by Uzbekistan persons, and the ultimate victims were the heirs. Knowing receipt also pointed to Uzbekistan law on every candidate choice of law rule. The contract and fiduciary claims against Averis pointed to Singapore, but because the facts overlapped heavily, splitting the action risked inconsistent findings, so all claims should go to Uzbekistan. The court held the assistant registrar wrong to rely on enforceability of a Singapore judgment, and found the possible transfer to the SICC added nothing. There was no cogent evidence of a risk of injustice in Uzbekistan; Jahangir's conviction for damaging Dinara's car showed she could obtain justice there.

On service out, the forum finding was decisive. The court agreed the claimants failed to disclose four material facts, including Civil Action 526 and certain exclusive jurisdiction clauses, but found the non-disclosure innocent and not serious enough on its own to set aside the order.

On the case management stay, the issue remained live only for the nominee directors, who did not contest jurisdiction. The court gave the claimants' expert little to zero weight for failing to disclose his past roles for Dinara and Abornes. Even so, Civil Action 526 concerned whether Abornes' shares were valid under Marshall Islands law, not the heirs' relative entitlements, so it would not decide Dinara's position or any claim for relief. Relying on Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) v Oswal [2011] FCA 424, the court found any effect on the suit premature and speculative, and distinguished PUBG Corp v Garena International I Pte Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 379.

The court allowed the appeals in part. It dismissed the appeals in RA/144/2025 and RA/146/2025, affirming the permanent stay on forum non conveniens grounds, and dismissed the appeals in RA/143/2025 and RA/147/2025, affirming the setting aside of the service out order. It allowed the appeal in HC/RA 145/2025, holding that the case management stay should not have been granted and ordering that application dismissed. Costs were to be heard later.