Significance: Singapore High Court held that a floating governing law and jurisdiction clause was invalid and unenforceable. Citing Prof Yeo Tiong Min’s Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore volume on Conflict of Laws, the Court held that if the proper law of a contract cannot be determined from a governing law clause at the time of the formation of the contract, then that clause does not satisfy as an express proper law. The Court then found that it could not sever the unenforceable governing law portion from the jurisdiction clause. The clause in the case effectively said that the governing law and jurisdiction was “laws of Singapore /or People’s Republic of China” and “Courts of Singapore /or People’s Republic of China”. It would do well for parties take proper legal advice on the validity of such important clauses, and not assume they can simply gamble this as a compromise of some sort or as some option for one party later on.
Significance: the Singapore High Court (coram: Belinda Ang J) commented obiter dicta on the approach which the Singapore courts will likely take on the applicable law in determining non-contractual obligations e.g. tortious liability and the conflict of laws doctrine renvoi, i.e. whether the reference to a foreign law includes the foreign law’s choice of law rules or not.
In sum, the Court opined that there is large support for the view that the applicable law be the contractually chosen law, which would govern contractual obligations. This approach gives weight to the party’s autonomy in their contractual choice.
As regards renvoi, the Court opined that a case-by-case approach to deciding the issue is uncertain. As for contract-related matters, the approach would likely be that reference to a foreign law only includes the domestic law of the foreign law and not also the choice of law rules. (If the reference includes the foreign choice of law rule, there could be a double renvoi where the choice of law might point to a third set of laws or back to Singapore law).
The court granted a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens applying the principles in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd  AC 460 (“Spiliada”), adopted in the Singapore courts: Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull  1 SLR(R) 377, CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd  4 SLR(R) 543 and JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd  1 SLR 391.