In its recent decision in Xu Xiangrong v Fu Xianwei [2026] SGHC(I) 23, the Singapore International Commercial Court examined the circumstances in which parallel foreign proceedings may be restrained through an anti-suit injunction.
I. Introduction
In its recent judgment in Xu Xiangrong and another v Fu Xianwei and others [2026] SGHC(I) 23, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) examined the circumstances in which a Singapore court may restrain a party from pursuing parallel proceedings before foreign courts.
The case concerned a cross-border dispute involving shipping companies, joint venture arrangements and competing claims to beneficial ownership. Despite ongoing litigation in Singapore, one party had commenced three related proceedings before courts in Shanghai, China.
The SICC granted an anti-suit injunction, emphasising the substantial overlap between the proceedings, the risk of inconsistent judgments and the oppressive nature of the parallel litigation.
II. The Facts
The dispute arose from a joint venture established in 2014 between Mr Xu Xiangrong (“Mr Xu”) and Mr Fu Xianwei (“Mr Fu”), involving Pacific Glory Shipping Pte Ltd and several associated shipping companies. Under the parties’ arrangements, Mr Fu held an 85% interest and Mr Xu a 15% interest. They also participated in investment arrangements concerning vessels held through separate ship-owning companies.
Following the breakdown of their business relationship in 2024, Mr Xu and Shanghai Changzhou International Freight Transport Agency Co, Ltd (“Changzhou”) commenced proceedings in Singapore concerning alleged breaches of the joint venture agreements, unpaid distributions, vessel-related investments and unauthorised transfers of funds.
In May 2025, the Singapore High Court determined that Singapore was the natural forum for the dispute. Permission to appeal was subsequently refused, and the proceedings were transferred to the SICC.
Nevertheless, Mr Fu initiated three proceedings in Shanghai:
- The Alleged Loan Suit: A claim for repayment of approximately USD 1.5 million allegedly advanced to Mr Xu, accompanied by an asset preservation order against his assets in China.
- The Changzhou Suit: Proceedings seeking recognition of Mr Fu’s alleged beneficial ownership of Changzhou and the transfer of shares registered in Mr Xu’s name.
- The Ocean Future Suit: Proceedings concerning a nominee shareholding agreement and the transfer of shares in Ocean Future Shipping Co Ltd.
The Alleged Loan Suit and the Ocean Future Suit had been dismissed at first instance in China, although appeals were being pursued. The Changzhou Suit had been withdrawn and subsequently refiled.
Mr Xu and Changzhou consequently applied to the SICC for an anti-suit injunction restraining Mr Fu from continuing the Shanghai proceedings and pursuing further related litigation.
III. The legal Issues
1. Requirements for an Anti-Suit Injunction
Referring to Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra [2019] 2 SLR 372, the SICC reaffirmed that an anti-suit injunction may be granted where the respondent is subject to the Singapore court’s jurisdiction, Singapore is the natural forum, the foreign proceedings are vexatious, oppressive or abusive, and the injunction does not unjustly deprive the respondent of a legitimate juridical advantage.
The Court also considered the relevance of contractual jurisdiction clauses, procedural delay and international judicial comity.
Since Mr Fu had participated in the Singapore proceedings, the Court’s jurisdiction over him was undisputed.
2. Singapore as the Natural Forum and the Risk of Parallel Litigation
The SICC held that Singapore was clearly the more appropriate forum for resolving the overall dispute.
All three Shanghai proceedings substantially overlapped with the Singapore litigation, particularly concerning the parties’ financial arrangements, their respective interests in the shipping companies and the beneficial ownership of corporate assets.
The Court rejected attempts to distinguish the proceedings merely because they involved different legal claims. Instead, it examined the substantive issues underlying each action.
It also emphasised that the determination of the natural forum may evolve as related proceedings progress. In this case, the Singapore courts had already determined that Singapore was the appropriate forum, and the litigation had advanced considerably.
Allowing the Shanghai proceedings to continue would therefore create a significant risk of inconsistent judgments, increased costs and procedural inefficiency.
3. Vexatious and Oppressive Proceedings
The Court further concluded that the Shanghai proceedings had been commenced in bad faith and were vexatious or oppressive.
In relation to the Alleged Loan Suit, the SICC considered the timing of the claim and the asset preservation order obtained against Mr Xu in China. These circumstances supported an inference of bad faith.
The Changzhou and Ocean Future proceedings were initiated after Singapore had already been confirmed as the appropriate forum. Both sought to establish Mr Fu’s alleged complete beneficial ownership of companies whose ownership was already disputed in Singapore.
The Court considered that these proceedings unnecessarily duplicated central issues in the Singapore litigation and exposed Mr Xu to additional procedural pressure.
4. Effect of the Jurisdiction Clause Favouring Shanghai Courts
A particularly significant issue concerned a jurisdiction clause in the nominee shareholding agreement relating to Ocean Future, which provided for disputes to be submitted to a court in Shanghai.
The SICC was inclined to accept that the clause was sufficiently certain to be effective under Chinese law, despite not identifying a particular Shanghai court.
However, the Court held that even if the clause was effective, strong reasons existed to grant the anti-suit injunction.
These included the abusive nature of the parallel proceedings, the risk of inconsistent findings and the fact that the Ocean Future Suit concerned issues affecting parties to the Singapore litigation who were not bound by the jurisdiction clause.
The judgment thus illustrates that an otherwise effective jurisdiction agreement does not necessarily preclude anti-suit relief where sufficiently strong countervailing circumstances exist.
5. International Comity and Legitimate Juridical Advantages
The SICC also rejected Mr Fu’s objections based on international judicial comity, procedural delay and the alleged loss of legitimate juridical advantages.
The Court found no unreasonable delay in seeking the injunction. It further observed that Mr Fu himself had created the potential conflict between the courts by commencing overlapping proceedings in China.
Although the SICC could not directly instruct Chinese registration authorities to amend corporate records, it could order Mr Xu to transfer the relevant shares. Accordingly, restraining the Shanghai proceedings would not deprive Mr Fu of a legitimate juridical advantage.
IV. Conclusion
In this recent judgment, the SICC granted the anti-suit injunction, restraining Mr Fu from continuing the three Shanghai proceedings and pursuing further litigation concerning the matters covered by the Singapore proceedings.
The decision highlights that the substantive overlap between proceedings, rather than their formal legal classification, is decisive when assessing the risk of conflicting judgments and oppressive parallel litigation. It further demonstrates that even a potentially valid foreign jurisdiction clause may not prevent anti-suit relief where strong reasons justify intervention.
KDB.legal Koch Boës advises on all matters relating to maritime law and related arbitration and litigation.
