SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jansen Chow and Ang Leong Hao, Rajah & Tann Singapore
Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP 9 Straits View #06-07 Marina One West Tower
Singapore 018937 Tel: +65 6535 3600 Email: info@rajahtannasia.com Web: sg.rajahtannasia.com
Introduction Singapore continues to cement its position as a lead - ing centre for cross-border fraud and asset recovery litigation. As a major financial hub with robust rule-of- law institutions, its courts regularly address complex multi-jurisdictional disputes involving asset misappro - priation and the increasingly prominent role of digital assets in fraudulent schemes. This write-up surveys the most significant recent judicial developments from 2025 to 2026. The Mareva Injunction The Mareva injunction remains the primary tool for preserving assets pending judgment. The require - ments for a Mareva injunction are well established: • a good arguable case on the merits; and • a real risk that the defendant will dissipate assets. The precise contours of the “real risk of dissipation” have been significantly refined in recent years. Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd v Jonathan John Shipping Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 1191; [2025] SGCA 36 (“Continental Shipping”) The Court of Appeal’s decision in Continental Ship - ping is one of the most important recent authorities on Mareva injunctions in Singapore. The case arose from a time charterparty dispute in which the respondent shipowner obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against the appellant charterer under section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994. The appellant applied to set aside the injunction and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that no real risk of dissipation had been established.
The Court distinguished between “unjustified” deal - ings with assets and those for “legitimate commer - cial reasons” or “in the ordinary course of business,” concluding that the former carried a dissipation risk. The touchstone is the defendant’s “dishonesty or propensity to be untruthful”, demonstrated by “solid evidence” rather than mere speculation. Probative factors include a “pattern of unusual or unexplained movement of funds” and conduct such as “misappro - priation of assets or market manipulation”. The Court identified several indicia of insufficient dis - sipation risk, namely: • cessation of primary business operations, where a plausible commercial explanation exists; • liquidity of the defendant’s assets, which reflects the business nature rather than the intent; • the foreign nationality of directors or shareholders; and • withdrawals from enjoined accounts made under the ordinary business expenses exception and promptly reported. The decision is a reminder that a Mareva injunction is not intended to provide a claimant with security for its claim or to guard against the risk of a defendant’s insolvency. Rather, it is a corrective measure intended to prevent the defendant from abusing the court’s pro - cess by deliberately frustrating the enforcement of a prospective judgment or award.
318 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook