ADM Asia-Pacific Trading PTE Ltd v Toepfer International Asia PTE Ltd & Anor

ADM Asia-Pacific Trading PTE Ltd v Toepfer International Asia PTE Ltd & Anor

The claimant did not apply for an anti-suit injunction promptly after being served with the Indonesian proceedings and instead actively engaged in those proceedings, including on the merits. The delay, combined with the advanced stage of the Indonesian litigation and the claimant's conscious choice to seek damages for breach of the arbitration agreement rather than injunctive relief, made it inappropriate as a matter of discretion and comity to grant the injunction.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: ADM Asia-Pacific Trading Pte. Ltd (formerly known as Toepfer International Asia Pte. Ltd); Defendant/respondent: PT Budi Semesta Satria
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration/anti Suit Injunction / Final Judgment on Application for Anti Suit Injunction
Outcome
Application for final anti-suit injunction refused
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Delay in Equitable Relief, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements, Comity, Jurisdictional Challenges
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Delay in Equitable Relief Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements Comity Jurisdictional Challenges

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADM Asia-Pacific Trading Pte. Ltd (formerly known as Toepfer International Asia Pte. Ltd)

Claimant/applicant

PT Budi Semesta Satria

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration/anti Suit Injunction / Final Judgment on Application for Anti Suit Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to a final anti-suit injunction restraining the defendant from continuing Indonesian proceedings in breach of a FOSFA arbitration agreement
  2. 2 Whether delay in seeking the injunction is a sufficient ground to refuse relief

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant did not apply for an anti-suit injunction promptly after being served with the Indonesian proceedings and instead actively engaged in those proceedings, including on the merits. The delay, combined with the advanced stage of the Indonesian litigation and the claimant's conscious choice to seek damages for breach of the arbitration agreement rather than injunctive relief, made it inappropriate as a matter of discretion and comity to grant the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for final anti-suit injunction refused