 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anandan v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.4/5/2005
njury and wrongful death are initiated in the High Court by the filing of a Writ of Summons, which is then served on the defendant. The Rules of Court provide the means of service upon persons residing inside and outside Singapore. The statute of limitations must be asserted as a defense, and may be waived by agreement. Lok also stated that the Rules of Court provide for discovery and the admission or exclusion of evidence.
Appellants contend that respondents' evidence did not establish that a Singapore court would have subject matter jurisdiction in this action. Apparently giving their own interpretation to the language in the Singapore statute quoted by Lok, giving the High Court "jurisdiction to hear and try any action in personam," they assert that the statute provides only the means of obtaining personal jurisdiction, omitting provision for subject matter jurisdiction. The concept of "subject matter jurisdiction" relates to the inherent authority of a court to deal with the case or matter before it. (See Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 288.) Lok explained, and the attached statutory language states, that the Singapore High Court has authority to hear any action in which personal jurisdiction has been obtained over the defendant.
Appellants submitted no evidence to the contrary, claiming that it was not their burden to do so, because Lok's declaration fails to show that Singapore recognizes personal injury causes of action, or that Singapore would take jurisdiction of an action brought by citizens of Taiwan for injuries incurred in Taiwan.
Even where a court has no power to grant a certain type of relief, it may still have inherent authority to deal with the case or matter before it, and would therefore have subject matter jurisdiction. (Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 288.) We find in Lok's declaration and the attached statutory excerpts, sufficient evidence that in Singapore, the High Court has inherent authority to hear any action in which the defendant has been served with process or has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Further, Lok stated that both personal injury claims and wrongful death claims are brought in the High Court by the filing of a Writ of Summons. In fact, respondent Boeing submitted the declaration of Singapore attorney Francis Xavier, whose record search revealed 24 pending actions in the Singapore High Court, filed by passengers or their representatives and relating to the same crash of Singapore Airlines Flight 006.
A defendant is not required to show that the proposed forum provides a remedy for the alleged wrong, or that the other forum recognizes the plaintiff's cause of action or theory of recovery. (Shiley Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 126, 131-133.) " he question of a suitable alternative forum depends . . . on whether an action may be commenced in the alternative jurisdiction and a valid judgment obtained there against the defendant. [Citation.]" (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 752, fn. 3.) Thus, "so long as there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar, a forum is suitable where an action `can be brought,' although not necessarily won." (Shiley Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p. 132.)
The trial court found that the moving defendants have agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore court, and to waive any statute of limitations. Since respondents have shown that the Singapore High Court will accept such stipulations, they have established that it is a suitable forum. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 752; see also, Roulier v. Cannondale (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1186.)
4. Private and Pub
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|