SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
ported a finding of a risk of dissipation independent of the underlying fraud allegation. The court also addressed Section 12A of the IAA. The SGCA confirmed that the Singapore courts may grant interim relief in support of a foreign-seated arbitration where the tribunal “has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively”. On its true construction, Section 12A may be invoked where relief is sought against a non-party to the arbitration agreement who would not clearly be bound by an order of an emer - gency arbitrator, and where relief is sought against a party without prior notice because notice might defeat the very purpose of the relief. Both conditions were satisfied, confirming that the Singapore courts can grant urgent protective relief in support of foreign- seated arbitrations. Setting aside a freezing order: Alphard Maritime In Alphard Maritime Ltd v Samson Maritime Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 154, the GDHC set aside a worldwide freezing injunction and a linked prohibitory injunction that had been granted ex parte in support of a Singapore-seated Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (SCMA) arbitration. The claimant alleged that the first and second defendants had reneged on a settlement agreement to sell a fleet of vessels and shares, instead selling some of the same assets to a third party (the third defendant) at a higher price and using part of the proceeds to repay pre-existing creditors. The applicant argued that this repayment itself evidenced a real risk of dissipation justifying the freezing order. The court disagreed with the claimant. Applying JTrust Asia and Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd v Pengrui Leasing ( Tianjin ) Co Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 1072, it held that a sale concluded at arm’s length, at a higher price than con - templated under the very agreement said to have been breached, was not itself dissipative, and that repay - ing genuine commercial creditors reduced rather than depleted the debtor’s asset position. An allegation of dishonesty only supports a freezing order where it has a real and material bearing on the risk of dissipation, which was absent on the facts: the impugned trans - actions had been recorded in public corporate filings, negating any suggestion of surreptitious dealing.
Alphard Maritime also clarified the urgency require - ment in Section 12A(4) of the IAA. The court held that urgency is a jurisdictional fact conditioning the court’s power to grant relief without the tribunal’s permission under Section 12A(5), and must be examined afresh on an inter partes application to set aside rather than by deference to the assessment made ex parte. As there had already been related court proceedings in India (including vessel arrests) commenced before the freezing order application was filed ex parte in Singa - pore, the absence of urgency independently justified setting aside the freezing order. In relation to the prohibitory injunction issued against the third defendant, the court addressed the reach of Section 12A over non-parties. It confirmed that, unlike the English position under Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (UK), Section 12A empowers the Singapore courts to grant interim relief against non- parties to the arbitration agreement, since the section confers on the court the same powers as it has in an ordinary action. That power is nonetheless limited: in personam jurisdiction over a non-party requires a suf - ficient nexus to Singapore, such as the non-party’s own status as a party to the arbitration agreement, its holding or control of assets within the jurisdiction belonging beneficially to a party, or its character as a Singapore-incorporated vehicle through which a par - ty’s assets could be dissipated. As the third defendant had no presence, assets or business in Singapore, the prohibitory injunction against it was set aside for want of jurisdiction. Taken together, Novo Nordisk and Alphard Maritime illustrate both the breadth and the limits of the courts’ protective powers under Section 12A of the IAA. While the Singapore courts are willing to grant urgent world - wide relief in support of foreign-seated arbitrations where the circumstances demand it, they will rigor - ously scrutinise the requirements of dissipation risk, urgency and jurisdictional nexus, and will discharge relief where on fuller examination the necessary evi - dential or jurisdictional basis is not made out. Safeguarding Integrity at the Enforcement Stage: Procedural Fraud, Re-Litigation and Hedging The previous edition of this guide highlighted the Sin - gapore courts’ willingness to set aside awards to pro -
854 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook