Abstract:
In the seminal Court of Appeal decision of Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd [2014] 3 SLR 381, Sundaresh Menon CJ departed from the traditional conception of jurisdiction as being monolithically rooted in presence, and recognised the notion of subject-matter jurisdiction. This essentially entails an examination into whether a non-resident is so closely connected to Singapore that a Singapore court is justified in regulating her extraterritorial conduct. This is a laudable development that coheres with the increasing outmodedness of Westphalian notions of sovereignty. This article suggests that, moving forward, subject-matter jurisdiction is relevant in two other contexts: as a true alternative to a plea of forum non conveniens, and as a check on the over-inclusive language of O 11 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), upon which ex juris service should only be allowed if the claim is closely enough connected to Singapore.