The Respondents were Singapore companies who each owned a drilling rig deployed in Mexican waters. The Respondents’ directors granted a power of attorney to Mexican lawyers to commence restructuring proceedings in Mexico in the Respondents’ names (such proceedings referred to as the Oro Concursos). However, the relevant provision in the Respondents’ Articles prohibited the companies and their directors from initiating the Oro Concursos without a vote on behalf of a bond trustee which had not been obtained. The Singapore High Court granted interim injunctions in respect of continuing the Oro Concursos. Nonetheless, the Oro Concursos continued in Mexico in breach of the Singapore Court’s interim injunctions. The Singapore High Court then granted a permanent injunction. One of the former directors, Mr White, appealed on the ground that the permanent injunction conflicted with Mexican Court decisions citing judicial comity. That argument failed.

Although the submissions were wide ranging, what is most likely to be of interest for international practitioners is the Court of Appeal’s reasoning of when the doctrine of comity will not apply.

The Court of Appeal affirmed previous Singaporean authority that “not all injunctions which [restrain] the pursuit of … foreign proceedings can be classified as anti-suit injunctions”. In this case, the permanent injunction was not an anti-suit because it did not restrain the Respondents from continuing the Oro Concursos, but rather restrained a former director of the Respondents (Mr White) from purporting to act on the Respondents’ behalf in maintaining the Oro Concursos. In other words, the injunction did not enjoin Mr White from commencing or continuing proceedings in a foreign Court in his own name.

The Court of Appeal also considered the relevance of comity in situations where an allegedly inconsistent foreign judgment post-dates a local decision and where the foreign judgment had allegedly been obtained in breach of the local decision. Here, there was no dispute that the breach of the Articles was continuing and that the Mexican decisions were procured in breach of the Singapore interim injunctions. To deny the permanent injunction would have been tantamount to not giving effect to the earlier interim injunctions, which in turn would effectively have extended recognition to the Mexican decisions procured in breach of the injunctions. The Singapore Court of Appeal gave priority to its own interim injunctions over comity considerations: “judicial comity could not be applied at the expense of the court’s role to protect its jurisdiction and orders.”

The decision is important because it showcases the limits of the comity doctrine where an injunction can be framed not as a restraint against a party continuing proceedings in their own name but rather on behalf of another. The decision also suggests that courts will be unwilling to apply the comity doctrine where this would lead to the undermining of their own orders. Ultimately, considerations of comity must be balanced against the concerns of the local forum in upholding its constitutional role to oversee the administration of justice and safeguarding the rule of law within its jurisdiction.