由此 A B - 6 14. There is no evidence of publication of the allegedly offending words in Hong Kong by either SBI or Mr Jook. The only evidence of A B publication is that there was a publication in Singapore. The assertions in the C statement of claim that: D D “4.1 The e-mail was published via the Internet to Mr Jook��s primary addresses in Hong Kong, Macau and elsewhere (“publication”). E F I E F 4.2 The e-mail was also re-published to persons to whom the e-mail was on-forwarded (electronically or otherwise) by the primary addressees (“re-publication”). ” G H C are quite without any evidential basis whatsoever, except in so far as the expression “elsewhere” necessarily includes Singapore. It is right that the G H I burden is on the defendants as the applicant for a stay. They discharge that J K burden by pointing to the statement of claim and showing that the e-mail was published only in Singapore. As to re-publication there is no allegation of J K any act against them in Hong Kong. L M L 15. Emperor have had every opportunity to substantiate publication M in Hong Kong or elsewhere other than Singapore, or re-publication by either N O of the defendants, and have failed to do so. Singapore is consequently, prima facie, the natural forum for the determination of the dispute. P N O P 16. I am satisfied that the answer to the stage 1 question is: Yes. Q Q 17. Mr Houghton did not assert as to the deprivation of any R R particular personal or juridical advantage that Emperor may suffer as a result S T of the trial taking place in Singapore. The suggestion was vaguely made that there was nothing to show that the Singapore Court would have jurisdiction S T U U V V