LUCKIN COFFEE INC v INTERACTIVE DIGITAL FINANCE LIMITED & 2 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(A) 7 consider?

The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC(A) 7 High Court (Appellate Division) 5 March 2024 • AD/OA 59/2023 • 17 min read

2 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	5 March 2024
Judges	Debbie Ong Siew Ling, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Audent Chambers LLC, TSMP Law Corporation, Tan Kok Quan Partnership, WongPartnership LLP, Chan Daniel, Chew Xizhi Stephanie, Chin Li Yuen Marina, Chin Yen Bing Arthur, Gitta Priska Adelya, Harpreet Singh, Jordan Tan, Lee Pei Hua Rachel, Lim Wei Lee, Lim Yuan Jing, Lynn Chew Aiping Alcina, Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Ong Pei Ching, Terence Yeo, Thio Shen Yi

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 7, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 5 March 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave Civil Procedure — Service — Leave for service out of jurisdiction

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (2)

Debbie Ong Siew Ling Coram Woo Bih Li Delivered

Counsel (19)

Parties (4)

Credit Suisse AG Respondent Interactive Digital Finance Limited Respondent Luckin Coffee Inc Applicant Tiah Thee Kian Respondent

Case Significance

Luckin Coffee Inc v Interactive Digital Finance Limited and others [2024] SGHC(A) 7 was decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court on 5 March 2024, with Woo Bih Li JAD delivering the judgment of the court, sitting with Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD. The proceedings arose from Originating Application No 59 of 2023 and concerned HC/OC 225/2023, an action filed in Singapore on 13 April 2023 by Interactive Digital Finance Limited ("IDFL") and Mr Tiah Thee Kian against Credit Suisse AG as first defendant and Luckin Coffee Inc as second defendant. IDFL was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and beneficially owned and controlled by Mr Tiah, a Malaysian citizen, while Luckin was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed on NASDAQ.

According to the catchwords, the judgment addressed two questions of civil procedure: leave to appeal, and leave for service out of jurisdiction. Luckin Coffee Inc, the applicant, was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, with counsel including Thio Shen Yi, Ong Pei Ching and Terence Yeo. The respondents, including Credit Suisse AG, were represented by firms comprising WongPartnership LLP, Tan Kok Quan Partnership and Audent Chambers LLC, with counsel including Harpreet Singh, Jordan Tan and Lim Wei Lee. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

[2024] SGHC(A) 7 explained

LUCKIN COFFEE INC v INTERACTIVE DIGITAL FINANCE LIMITED & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC(A) 7) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 5 March 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC(A) 7 about?

LUCKIN COFFEE INC v INTERACTIVE DIGITAL FINANCE LIMITED & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC(A) 7) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave” and “Civil Procedure — Service — Leave for service out of jurisdiction”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(A) 7 consider?

The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2024] SGHC(A) 7?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC(A) 7 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

5 March 2024

Case summary

Luckin Coffee Inc v Interactive Digital Finance Limited and others [2024] SGHC(A) 7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (delivered by Justice Woo Bih Li):

Outcome: The Appellate Division of the High Court dismisses Luckin Coffee Inc’s (“Luckin”) application for permission to appeal against the decision of the General Division of the High Court which upheld a decision by the Deputy Registrar to dismiss Luckin’s application to set aside permission granted for Luckin to be served process out of jurisdiction.

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• Luckin’s suggested question of whether a foreign issuer of shares is subject to the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction where an investor has purchased shares or derivative products based on these shares is not a question of general principle as the decision below concerned the application of established principles to the specific facts of the case: at [21].

• Luckin’s emphasis on its status as an issuer of shares on a foreign stock exchange in the United States of America (“USA”) has no bearing on the crucial question of whether Singapore is the natural forum for the resolution of the claims against it. As Luckin is defending claims based on misrepresentations it had allegedly made, whether Singapore is the natural forum is governed by established principles on the factors connecting these alleged misrepresentations to Singapore: at [22].

Background

1 Luckin is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its shares listed on NASDAQ in the USA.

2 Interactive Digital Finance Limited (“IDFL”) and Tiah Thee Kian (“Mr Tiah”) filed a claim for deceit and negligence against Credit Suisse AG and Luckin for losses suffered in the purchase of Luckin’s shares and derivative products because of allegedly false representations made by both Credit Suisse AG and Luckin.

3 As Luckin is located outside Singapore, IDFL and Mr Tiah obtained permission from the court to serve the originating claim on Luckin in the Cayman Islands.

4 The Deputy Registrar granted IDFL and Mr Tiah permission to serve their originating claim out of Singapore on Luckin in the Cayman Islands. This was subsequently upheld by a judge of the General Division of the High Court (the “Judge”).

5 In AD/OA 59/2023, Luckin seeks permission to appeal against the decision of the Judge on the basis that the following questions amount to either questions of general principle to be decided for the first time or questions of importance upon which a decision of a higher tribunal would be to the public advantage:

a. Whether a foreign issuer of shares is subject to the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction where an investor has purchased shares and/or derivative products based on that foreign issuer’s shares through an investment account in Singapore

b. Whether a foreign company listed on a foreign stock exchange is subject to the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction where an investor has purchased derivative products based on that listed company’s shares (which products the listed company had no involvement in preparing and/or marketing) through a bank account in Singapore.

c. Whether the filing of a contribution notice amounts to a sufficient nexus to establish jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in Singapore, and whether paragraph 63(3)(q) of the SCPD 2021 refers to the liability faced by the party seeking indemnity or contribution when it refers to “a liability enforceable by proceedings in Singapore”.

Decision

6 The alleged question of whether a foreign issuer of shares is subject to the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction where an investor has purchased shares or derivative products based on these shares is not a question of general principle as the Judge’s decision concerned the application of established principles to the specific facts of the case: at [21].

7 Luckin’s issuance of shares on a foreign stock exchange in the USA has no bearing on the crucial question of whether Singapore is the natural forum for the resolution of the claims against it. As Luckin is defending claims based on misrepresentations it had allegedly made, whether Singapore is the natural forum is governed by established principles on the factors connecting these alleged misrepresentations to Singapore: at [22].

8 As for the meaning of para 63(3)(q) of the SCPD 2021, this is not material in the present circumstances as IDFL and Mr Tiah did not rely on that provision in seeking permission to serve the originating claim on Luckin outside Singapore: at [25].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

What was decided in Luckin Coffee v Interactive Digital Finance [2024] SGHC(A) 7?

Decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court on 5 March 2024, the case addressed two civil procedure questions arising from Originating Application No 59 of 2023: leave to appeal, and leave for service out of jurisdiction, in proceedings connected to HC/OC 225/2023.

Who were the parties in [2024] SGHC(A) 7?

The applicant was Luckin Coffee Inc, incorporated in the Cayman Islands and NASDAQ-listed. The respondents were Interactive Digital Finance Limited (a British Virgin Islands company), its owner Mr Tiah Thee Kian, and Credit Suisse AG. Woo Bih Li JAD and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD heard the matter.

Which law firms acted in Luckin Coffee v Interactive Digital Finance ([2024] SGHC(A) 7)?

Luckin Coffee Inc was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, with counsel including Thio Shen Yi and Ong Pei Ching. The respondents were represented by WongPartnership LLP, Tan Kok Quan Partnership and Audent Chambers LLC, with counsel including Harpreet Singh and Jordan Tan.