Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA: Mareva Injunction & Foreign Arbitration
Swift-Fortune Ltd, a Liberian company, appealed against the High Court's decision to set aside a Mareva injunction against Magnifica Marine SA, a Panamanian company. The injunction sought to restrain Magnifica from dealing with its assets in Singapore pending arbitration in London. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 12(7) of the International Arbitration Act does not grant Singapore courts the power to issue Mareva injunctions in support of foreign arbitrations where there is no accrued cause of action recognizable by a Singapore court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal addresses power to grant Mareva injunction in aid of foreign arbitration. Appeal dismissed, upholding High Court's decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Swift-Fortune Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Magnifica Marine SA | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Swift-Fortune purchased a vessel from Magnifica for US$9.5m.
- The sale agreement was subject to English law and provided for arbitration in London.
- Swift-Fortune deposited 20% of the purchase price in an escrow account in Singapore.
- Delivery of the vessel was delayed, leading to Swift-Fortune claiming losses of US$2m-US$2.5m.
- Swift-Fortune sought a Mareva injunction in Singapore to restrain Magnifica from disposing of assets.
- Magnifica applied to set aside the injunction, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.
5. Formal Citations
- Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA, CA 24/2006, [2006] SGCA 42
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Swift-Fortune filed an action, ex parte, seeking a Mareva injunction. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Power to Grant Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that Section 12(7) of the International Arbitration Act does not grant Singapore courts the power to issue Mareva injunctions in support of foreign arbitrations where there is no accrued cause of action recognizable by a Singapore court.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Jurisdiction of Singapore court to grant interim relief in aid of foreign arbitral proceedings
- Interpretation of Section 12(7) of the International Arbitration Act
- Applicability of Section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 2 SLR 323
- [2006] 1 SLR 112
- [1979] AC 210
- [2006] 3 SLR 854
8. Remedies Sought
- Mareva Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- Mareva Injunctions
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 323 | Singapore | The decision of the High Court which set aside a Mareva injunction restraining Magnifica Marine SA from disposing of or dealing with its assets in Singapore pending arbitration proceedings between the parties in London. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 112 | Singapore | Applied the principle in Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera SA that a Singapore court has no power to grant Mareva relief in respect of the Singapore assets of a foreign defendant if the only purpose of such relief is to support foreign court proceedings. |
| Siskina v Distos Compania Naviera SA | House of Lords | Yes | [1979] AC 210 | United Kingdom | Established the principle that a court could not grant Mareva interlocutory relief unless the defendant was amenable to the jurisdiction of the court in respect of a substantive cause of action. |
| Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 854 | Singapore | Held that under s 12(7) of the IAA the court has the power to grant a free-standing Mareva injunction in aid of foreign arbitration. |
| PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen Air | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 393 | Singapore | Applied to determine what a proper case is under Order 69A rule 4, that in order to establish a proper case, the plaintiff has to show, first, that there are merits in the case and, second, that Singapore is the forum conveniens. |
| Econ Corporation International Limited v Ballast-Nedam International BV | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 15 | Singapore | Decided that s 12(7) of the IAA confers on the court power to grant interim relief under s 12(1)(g) in aid of a foreign arbitration. |
| Coop International Pte Ltd v Ebel SA | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 670 | Singapore | Cited in Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp. The current judgment states that this case has nothing relevant to say about s 12(7) on Mareva interlocutory relief that requires consideration. |
| Art Trend Ltd v Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1982-1983] SLR 362 | Singapore | Delivered the first written judgment on the Mareva injunction in Singapore. |
| Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck | Privy Council | Yes | [1996] 1 AC 284 | Hong Kong | Dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction over the defendant, and power to grant a Mareva injunction against the defendant. |
| Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Betty Construction Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1993] AC 334 | United Kingdom | Addressed the power of the court to grant interim measures of protection, and the relationship between such measures and the procedural powers of arbitrators. |
| Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corporation Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1981] AC 909 | United Kingdom | Endorsed the principle that an English court had no supervisory power over the conduct of arbitration proceedings more extensive than the powers conferred by the powers of the Arbitration Acts. |
| Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corporation | House of Lords | Yes | [1989] 1 AC 1112 | United Kingdom | The basis of the rule that statutes do not have extraterritorial effect is the presumption that our own Parliament will not seek to intervene in matters that are legitimately the concern of another country. |
| The Rena K | High Court | Yes | [1979] QB 377 | United Kingdom | Cited in Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp. The current judgment states that the purpose of s 7 is to do away with the Rena K test. |
| The Lady Muriel | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 HKC 320 | Hong Kong | Addressed whether the Hong Kong court had jurisdiction to order a survey to be conducted on a vessel in its territorial waters in aid of arbitral proceedings in London. |
| Pettitt v Pettitt | House of Lords | Yes | [1970] AC 777 | United Kingdom | Nor can the meaning of a statute have changed merely by reason of a change in social outlook since the date of its enactment; it must continue to bear the meaning which upon its true construction in the light of the relevant surrounding circumstances it bore at that time. |
| Meespierson (Bahamas) Limited v Grupo Torras SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1999–2000) 2 ITELR 29 | Bahamas | The court had to consider scope of s 21(1) of the Supreme Court Act (Bahamas) which was modelled verbatim on s 37(1) of the English 1981 Act (and which Ang J had held to be materially similar, although differently worded from s 4(10) of the CLA). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva Injunction
- International Arbitration
- Foreign Arbitration
- Singapore International Arbitration
- Section 12(7) International Arbitration Act
- Section 4(10) Civil Law Act
- Accrued Cause of Action
- Forum Conveniens
- The Siskina Doctrine
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- injunction
- singapore
- international
- mareva
- court
- law
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- International Law