Oakwell Engineering Ltd v Enernorth Industries Inc

340:

Oakwell responded that it was for Canadian courts to decide on this, based on the criteria laid out by the courts. Among other things, it pointed out that Enernorth had neither alleged bias nor contested the Singapore courts' jurisdiction when the case was heard in Singapore. When the case was moved to Canada, two of Enernorth's expert witnesses – including Francis Seow – had admitted they were unaware of any commercial case from Singapore that had been attacked as unfair or biased. On January 18, 2007,

26: 187:, if Enernorth's appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal had succeeded, this might have had the effect of dissuading companies from using Singaporean law for arbitration and trial, and calling into question the fairness of the Singaporean legal system. However, Enernorth lost its appeal before the Court of Appeal, and was refused leave to appeal to the 210:

against Enernorth for failure to release the funds for the project. The two sides signed a Settlement Agreement in December 1998, agreeing that the earlier contract was "terminated" and "discharged", and that Enernorth was "released" from any obligations under the contract. Oakwell sold its stake in

214:

However, Enernorth later posited that as the Indian government had not granted the licenses necessary, the project had not achieved "financial closure", and according to Enernorth's lawyers, the Agreement "did not contain any express obligation on Enernorth to procure financial closure". Enernorth

303:

of individuals who use their powers to maintain their own power and further their own political, economic, social and familial interests." Seow's affidavit claimed that the court proceedings in Singapore had not been heard by an independent judiciary due to the "consuming and controlling power of

339:

for leave to appeal against the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, Enernorth argued that to recognize judgments such as those from Singapore meant that Canadian judges were "mere functionaries or sheriffs for foreign legal systems, no matter how corrupt they are".

326:

in a decision dated June 9, 2006. The judgment supported Justice Day's findings that the evidence of Enernorth's expert witnesses was "either unreliable ... or too general to prove that there was not a fair trial in this case". It also supported the findings that "there was a lack of evidence of

271:

However, Enernorth appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal on the grounds that the lower court erred. According to Enernorth, the Superior Court had considered only whether there was bias against Enernorth in this

47:

Oakwell Engineering Limited v Enernorth Industries Inc. (formerly known as Energy Power Systems Limited, Engineering Power Systems Group Inc. and Engineering Power Systems Limited respectively)

165:

granting an application brought by Oakwell Engineering Limited (Oakwell), a Singaporean company, for an order recognizing and enforcing in Ontario a judgment granted against Enernorth by the

203:, India. However, the licenses necessary for the project were never obtained, and a new Indian government requirement to use natural gas instead of furnace oil made the project infeasible. 180:

were not the same as those in Canada. Among other things, Enernorth alleged that links between the judiciary, business and the executive arm in Singapore suggested a real risk of bias.

299:. In his affidavit, Worthington stated that "all aspects of the governance of Singapore, including the judiciary, are carefully manipulated and ultimately controlled by a 376:

K. C. Vijayan (January 27, 2007), "Payout fight over 'biased judiciary' rejected: Firm's final bid to Canada's highest court fails, so S'pore court judgment stands",

355:, sitting in the Supreme Court, dismissed Enernorth's leave application without providing detailed reasons and ordered it to bear the costs of the application. 718: 698: 654: 494: 211:

the venture to Enernorth. Enernorth paid an initial sum to Oakwell and agreed to pay the remainder within 30 days of "financial closure".

397: 703: 693: 177: 634: 585: 454: 260: 162: 95: 259:

As Enernorth had no seizable assets in Singapore, Oakwell brought the case against Enernorth to Canada. Justice Gerald Day of the

231:

ruling that Enernorth had an "implied" obligation to obtain financial closure within six months, and awarding Oakwell the sum of

708: 426: 296: 276:

case, but enforcing the judgment would require that Oakwell prove to the court that the standard of justice in Singapore

402: 236: 170: 639: 599: 477: 323: 316: 158: 36: 176:

The case is notable because Enernorth claimed that the Singapore judgment should not be recognized in Canada because

240: 595: 581: 473: 450: 91: 72: 612: 558: 109: 713: 304:

Singapore's ruling party over all facets of life in Singapore", and that defamation suits had been used by the

616: 562: 341: 336: 305: 224: 188: 166: 113: 287:, Adjunct Professor of Governance at the National Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance at 327:

corruption or bias in private commercial cases and no cogent evidence of bias in this specific case".

199:

Oakwell and Enernorth formed a joint venture in June 1997 to build two barge-mounted power stations in

672: 308:

to suppress opposition politicians and non-compliant media, citing the example of the prosecution of

499:: Memorandum of Fact and Law of the Appellant, Enernorth Industries Inc. [Docket No. C43898] 663: 288: 352: 344: 510: 378: 407: 284: 232: 309: 184: 644: 506: 348: 319:

rejected the allegations of bias on the part of the Singapore judiciary as "spurious".

200: 25: 687: 243: 161:

by Enernorth Industries Inc. (Enernorth), a Canadian company, from a judgment of the

130: 432: 292: 228: 584:, Court File Nos. 04-CV-271121CM3 & 04-CV-274860CM2, (2005) 76 O.R. (3d) 528, 453:, Court File Nos. 04-CV-271121CM3 & 04-CV-274860CM2, (2005) 76 O.R. (3d) 528, 94:, Court File Nos. 04-CV-271121CM3 & 04-CV-274860CM2, (2005) 76 O.R. (3d) 528, 630: 227:

to obtain the further payment. The court found in Oakwell's favor, with Justice

207: 283:

As evidence, Enernorth obtained the testimony of expert witnesses, including

300: 659:: Questions of Burden and Bias in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments" 422: 657: