Singapore companies increasingly do business across multiple jurisdictions, and disputes with foreign counterparties sometimes trigger a tactical problem: a foreign party starts proceedings abroad in breach of a contract that says disputes must be resolved in Singapore, or in a forum chosen purely to frustrate or harass the Singapore company. When that happens, a Singapore company is not powerless. It may apply to the Singapore High Court for an anti-suit injunction, an order restraining the foreign party from commencing or continuing those foreign proceedings.
This article sets out what an anti-suit injunction is, its legal basis, who can apply, the step-by-step process, the documents and costs typically involved, and what happens after the order is made.
1. What an Anti-Suit Injunction Is
An anti-suit injunction is a court order directed at a party, not at a foreign court, restraining that party from commencing or continuing proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. Because Singapore courts have no power to bind a foreign tribunal directly, the injunction operates in personam: it tells the respondent that if they continue the foreign action, they risk being in contempt of the Singapore court’s order, with consequences such as committal or adverse costs orders.
Singapore courts recognise broadly two categories of anti-suit injunction:
- Contractual anti-suit injunctions, where the foreign proceedings breach an exclusive jurisdiction clause or an arbitration agreement between the parties; and
- Non-contractual anti-suit injunctions, granted where the foreign proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive, or would unduly interfere with the process, jurisdiction or judgments of the Singapore court, even without a governing contractual clause.
A worked illustration: Harborview Trading Pte Ltd, a Singapore company, enters a distribution agreement with a Vietnamese counterparty that contains an exclusive Singapore jurisdiction clause. After a dispute over unpaid commissions, the Vietnamese counterparty commences proceedings in a Vietnamese court instead, in clear breach of the clause. Harborview may apply to the Singapore High Court for an anti-suit injunction restraining the Vietnamese counterparty from continuing the Vietnamese action, and requiring it to bring the dispute to Singapore as the parties agreed.
2. Legal Basis
Unlike some of the remedies discussed elsewhere on this site, an anti-suit injunction is not created by a single named section of a specific statute. Its statutory footing lies in the General Division of the High Court’s broad injunctive jurisdiction under section 18(2), read with paragraph 14 of the First Schedule, of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (available at Singapore Statutes Online), which empowers the Court to “grant all reliefs and remedies at law and in equity, including interim relief,” and specifically the power to restrain a threatened or apprehended legal wrong.
Where the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, the Court’s willingness to grant an anti-suit injunction is reinforced by Singapore’s strong pro-arbitration policy under the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA) (available at Singapore Statutes Online), which gives effect to the parties’ bargain to arbitrate rather than litigate. The procedural mechanics of the application, whether made with or without notice to the respondent, are governed by the Rules of Court 2021 (available at Singapore Statutes Online), under Order 15 (applications for injunctions) read with Order 9 (originating applications).
The Governing Tests
For a contractual anti-suit injunction, Singapore courts generally require the applicant to show: (1) the respondent is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Singapore court; (2) the foreign proceedings are in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement between the parties; and (3) there are no strong reasons why the parties’ contractual bargain should not be enforced.
For a non-contractual anti-suit injunction, the applicant must show that the foreign proceedings are vexatious or oppressive, or unduly interfere with the process of the Singapore court, and that Singapore is clearly the more appropriate forum (the natural forum) for resolving the dispute. The Court will also weigh considerations of international comity, being cautious not to appear to dictate to a foreign court how it should run its own docket, particularly where the foreign proceedings are already well advanced.
3. Who Can Apply
Any party to Singapore civil proceedings, or a party who is threatened with or has been named in foreign proceedings brought in breach of a jurisdiction or arbitration clause, may apply. In practice, applicants are usually:
- A Singapore company that is a party to a contract containing an exclusive Singapore jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause, where the counterparty has ignored that clause and sued abroad instead;
- A Singapore company already engaged in Singapore court or arbitral proceedings, where a foreign party starts a duplicative or tactical action overseas to disrupt or pre-empt the Singapore process; and
- A party to an arbitration agreement seeking to restrain a non-party or a related company from pursuing foreign court proceedings that would circumvent the arbitration agreement.
There is no requirement that the respondent be a Singapore entity. The injunction binds any party properly before the Singapore court, wherever incorporated, provided the Court has personal jurisdiction over them (typically because they are a party to the contract containing the relevant clause, or have otherwise submitted to Singapore’s jurisdiction).
4. Step-by-Step Process
- Identify the breach. Confirm that foreign proceedings have been commenced, or are clearly threatened, in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause, or that they are otherwise vexatious or oppressive.
- Assess urgency. Because delay can be fatal (the longer the foreign proceedings continue, the more a Singapore court will hesitate to intervene out of comity), the applicant should act quickly once the foreign action comes to light.
- Prepare supporting affidavit evidence. This should set out the contractual clause relied upon (or the facts supporting a non-contractual claim), the foreign proceedings and their current stage, and the harm the applicant will suffer if the foreign action continues.
- File the originating application. The application is filed in the General Division of the High Court, typically supported by an affidavit, and may in cases of genuine urgency be brought without notice to the respondent in the first instance, with an early inter partes hearing to follow.
- Interim injunction hearing. The Court considers whether to grant interim relief pending a full hearing, applying the usual principles for interlocutory injunctions (a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience, and, in most cases, an undertaking as to damages from the applicant).
- Respondent’s opportunity to be heard. Where the injunction was granted without notice, the respondent is given an early opportunity to apply to set it aside or vary its terms, and to file affidavit evidence in response.
- Final hearing. The Court determines, on the full evidence, whether a final anti-suit injunction should be granted, having regard to the contractual position (if any), the conduct of the parties, and considerations of comity towards the foreign court.
- Service and enforcement. Once granted, the order is served on the respondent (and, where relevant, notified informally to the foreign court through the parties’ own submissions there). Breach of the injunction by continuing the foreign proceedings can expose the respondent to committal proceedings for contempt of the Singapore court.
5. Documents Required
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Originating application and supporting affidavit | Sets out the grounds for the injunction and the relief sought |
| The underlying contract | Evidences the exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause relied upon |
| Copies of the foreign proceedings (writ, statement of claim, court filings) | Shows the nature, stage and forum of the foreign action |
| Correspondence between the parties | Establishes the dispute’s history and any pre-litigation demands |
| Undertaking as to damages | Standard requirement to compensate the respondent if the injunction is later found to be wrongly granted |
| Evidence of harm or prejudice | Demonstrates why the foreign proceedings are vexatious, oppressive, or a breach of contract |
| Certificate of urgency (where applicable) | Supports an application without notice for expedited interim relief |
6. Timeline and Costs
| Stage | Typical Duration | Indicative Cost (SGD) |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence gathering and urgent case assessment | Days to 2 weeks | 5,000 to 15,000 |
| Filing and hearing an urgent interim application | A few days to 3 weeks | 15,000 to 40,000 |
| Inter partes hearing on interim relief | 3 to 8 weeks after filing | 10,000 to 25,000 |
| Final hearing (if contested to conclusion) | 4 to 9 months from filing | 30,000 to 100,000 or more |
| Court and filing fees | Throughout proceedings | Several hundred to a few thousand dollars |
Anti-suit injunction applications are often front-loaded in cost because of the urgency involved, particularly where interim relief is sought without notice. Costs escalate significantly if the foreign proceedings are already advanced, since the applicant must also address why the Singapore court should still intervene despite the progress made abroad.
7. What Happens After the Order
If the injunction is granted, the respondent must discontinue or refrain from continuing the foreign proceedings. The foreign court itself is not bound by the Singapore order and may, in principle, proceed regardless, but most foreign courts and parties respect an anti-suit injunction issued by a court with a genuine and recognised connection to the dispute, particularly where an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause is clearly engaged. Non-compliance by the respondent can be treated as contempt of the Singapore court, exposing the respondent (and, in the case of a corporate respondent, potentially its officers) to committal proceedings, fines, or adverse costs and inferences in the Singapore proceedings that continue in parallel.
If the injunction is refused, the applicant remains free to defend the foreign proceedings on their merits and may still be able to resist enforcement of any resulting foreign judgment in Singapore on grounds such as breach of the parties’ exclusive jurisdiction agreement.
Where the underlying dispute is arbitrable, a successful anti-suit injunction is often followed by a stay application or a fresh reference to arbitration in Singapore, so that the parties’ original bargain to arbitrate is finally given effect.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Does an anti-suit injunction stop the foreign court from hearing the case?
No. The order binds the party, not the foreign court. It restrains the respondent personally from pursuing the foreign proceedings; it does not purport to direct the foreign tribunal.
How quickly must a company act?
As quickly as possible. Delay is one of the most common reasons Singapore courts decline to grant anti-suit relief, since the further the foreign proceedings have progressed, the greater the offence to international comity in restraining them.
Does the contract need an arbitration clause, or is a jurisdiction clause enough?
Either can found a contractual anti-suit injunction. An exclusive jurisdiction clause naming the Singapore courts, or an arbitration agreement, both give rise to a strong contractual basis for the injunction. Non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses are treated more cautiously.
What if there is no contract between the parties at all?
A non-contractual anti-suit injunction may still be available where the foreign proceedings are vexatious, oppressive, or unduly interfere with Singapore proceedings, but this is a higher and less predictable threshold than the contractual route.
What is an undertaking as to damages, and why is it required?
It is the applicant’s promise to compensate the respondent for loss caused by the injunction if it later turns out to have been wrongly granted. Singapore courts routinely require this as a condition of interim injunctive relief.
Can a company be held in contempt for ignoring an anti-suit injunction?
Yes. If a respondent company (through its directors or officers) continues the foreign proceedings in defiance of a Singapore anti-suit injunction, it risks committal proceedings for contempt of court in Singapore, along with adverse costs and evidentiary consequences.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork, ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
📧 Email: [email protected]
📱 Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
— The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services
Related reading:
- Mareva Injunctions in Singapore Company Disputes
- Anton Piller Orders in Singapore Company Cases
- Prohibitory vs Mandatory Injunctions in Singapore Company Disputes
- Balance of Convenience Test in Singapore Company Injunction Applications
- Stay of Court Proceedings in Favour of Arbitration: Section 6 IAA