Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten: Mareva Injunction & Breach of Contract Dispute
In Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between shareholders, Suppiah and Borgensten, regarding a Deed of Agreement. Suppiah sought a Mareva Injunction against Borgensten, alleging a risk of asset dissipation. The court dismissed Borgensten's application to set aside the Mareva Injunction Order, finding solid evidence that Borgensten's probity could not be relied upon and that there was a real risk he would dissipate his assets to thwart any judgment or award that Suppiah might obtain.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Borgensten's application to set aside the Mareva Injunction Order was dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Shareholders Suppiah and Borgensten dispute a Deed of Agreement. The court addresses a Mareva Injunction and potential asset dissipation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arubugam Suppiah | Plaintiff | Individual | Application to set aside Mareva Injunction dismissed | Won | |
| Curt Evert Borgensten | Defendant | Individual | Application to set aside Mareva Injunction dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Suppiah and Borgensten are shareholders in Johnson Industries Ltd (JIL).
- JIL owns 100% of Johnson Industries Pte Ltd (JIPL).
- Borgensten failed to pay Suppiah $1 million as per the Deed of Agreement.
- Suppiah exercised his Put Option requiring Borgensten to purchase his shares in JIL.
- Borgensten failed to comply with multiple EJD Orders.
- Borgensten failed to disclose his assets as required by the Mareva Injunction Orders.
- Borgensten failed to appoint Suppiah as a director of JIL.
5. Formal Citations
- Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten, OS 600167/2001, SIC 600944/2001, [2001] SGHC 199
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deed of Agreement signed | |
| Payment of $1 million requested and Put Option exercised | |
| Writ of Summons filed | |
| Summary judgment entered against Borgensten | |
| Judgment obtained | |
| Application for oral examination of Borgensten allowed | |
| Appeal heard | |
| Appeal dismissed | |
| Claimant accepted the Respondent’s repudiation of the Deed | |
| Borgensten applied for an extension of time | |
| Further arguments requested | |
| EJD hearing | |
| Notice of Arbitration filed | |
| Borgensten's solicitors filed an application asking for an extension of time | |
| Hearing adjourned for two weeks | |
| Further arguments heard and original decision affirmed | |
| Hearing adjourned | |
| Additional amount of S$73,000 was credited into his Singapore dollar account | |
| Ex parte Originating Summons filed for a Mareva Injunction Order | |
| 5th EJD Order made | |
| Hearing | |
| Suppiah’s solicitors obtained a Garnishee Order Nisi | |
| Ex parte applications filed for leave to apply for an Order of Committal | |
| Leave to apply for Orders of Committal granted | |
| Order for an appointment of receivers in the OS action | |
| Suppiah applied for orders of committal | |
| Borgensten’s solicitors filed an application in the OS | |
| Suppiah applied for the Defendant be restrained from leaving Singapore | |
| Borgensten’s application to set aside the MI Order in the OS and for other relief was heard | |
| First hearing of the applications for committal orders | |
| Resumed hearing | |
| Further arguments were heard |
7. Legal Issues
- Risk of Dissipation of Assets
- Outcome: The court found a real risk that Borgensten would dissipate his assets to thwart any judgment or award that Suppiah might obtain.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 3 SLR 547
- [1997] 1 SLR 604
- [1984] 1 All ER 398
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Borgensten had breached his obligation under the Deed by failing to appoint Suppiah as a director of JIL and giving false excuses for this failure.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Mareva Injunction
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd v Tomongo Shipping Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 547 | Singapore | Cited regarding the evidence required to demonstrate a real risk of dissipation of assets. |
| Choy Chee Keen Collin v Public Utilities Board | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 604 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need for solid evidence to support assertions of a real risk of dissipation. |
| The Niedersachsen; Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesselschaft mbH & Co KG | N/A | Yes | [1984] 1 All ER 398 | N/A | Cited regarding the need for 'solid evidence' to support assertions of a real risk of dissipation. |
| Art Trend Ltd v Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1983] 1 MLJ 25 | N/A | Cited regarding the need for 'some grounds for believing that there is a risk’ of the assets being dissipated |
| O’Regan & Ors v Iambic Productions Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1989) 139 NLJ 1378 | N/A | Cited regarding the need to act on objective facts from which the court can infer that the defendant is likely to move assets abroad or dissipate them within the jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva Injunction
- Deed of Agreement
- Put Option
- Dissipation of Assets
- EJD Orders
- Repudiation
- Shareholder Dispute
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva Injunction
- breach of contract
- shareholder dispute
- arbitration
- asset dissipation
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Injunctions
- Contract Law
- Arbitration
- Shareholder Disputes