Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd: Mareva Injunctions & Court Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Fraud

In Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed the issue of its jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions in support of foreign proceedings. Petroval SA, a French company, initiated an action in Singapore against ten defendants, primarily based in the British Virgin Islands and Switzerland, seeking interim relief mirroring orders from a BVI court. The High Court, presided over by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, ultimately determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested interlocutory relief, setting aside the injunction and related proceedings. The court emphasized that the substantive claims would not be adjudicated in Singapore, and the action was solely for interim relief.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The court set aside the interlocutory relief sought by the plaintiff, as well as the writ of summons, the service thereof, and all subsequent proceedings.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunctions ancillary to foreign claims in a fraud case involving asset dissipation. Appeal expedited.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Francois OstinelliDefendantIndividualInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Alexander NovoselovDefendantIndividualInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Petroval SAPlaintiffCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideLost
Stainby Overseas LtdDefendantCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Norreys Worldwide LimitedDefendantCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideWon
John Frederick Peters LushDefendantIndividualInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Everon Associates LimitedDefendantCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Major Oil & Property Services LimitedDefendantCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Fiortino Investments LimitedDefendantCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Odey International Holdings LimitedDefendantCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideWon
Podium Capital Holdings IncDefendantCorporationInterlocutory relief set asideWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Swee YenWong Partnership LLP
Alvin YeoWong Partnership LLP
Jenny TsinWong Partnership LLP
Vinodh CoomaraswamyShook Lin & Bok LLP
Georgina LumShook Lin & Bok LLP
Marcus YipShook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff commenced action in Singapore against defendants with assets in Singapore.
  2. Plaintiff sought interim relief mirroring that given in BVI action.
  3. Plaintiff applied for a stay of the Singapore action concurrently with the grant of interim relief.
  4. Plaintiff acknowledged it was securing orders readily enforceable in Singapore.
  5. Defendants' addresses were in BVI and Switzerland.
  6. BVI High Court granted leave to commence the Singapore action using information obtained in the BVI action.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd and Others, Suit 103/2008, SUM 1016/2008, 1341/2008, [2008] SGHC 64

6. Timeline

DateEvent
BVI court granted injunctive relief.
BVI court made compliance orders.
Plaintiff commenced the Singapore action.
Singapore court granted injunction and receivership orders.
Defendants applied for suspension of receivership orders.
Court granted defendants' application to suspend receivership orders.
Hearing on the merits of the BVI order before the BVI court.
Decision date of the Singapore High Court.
Court of Appeal gave directions for an expedited appeal.
Expedited appeal scheduled for hearing.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Court's jurisdiction to grant Mareva injunction
    • Outcome: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the interlocutory relief sought by the plaintiff.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether Mareva injunction must be ancillary to claim for relief that would be granted by Singapore court
  2. Service out of jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did disclose the relevant ground and would not set aside the grant of leave on this ground.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to state ground in O 11 r 1 Rules of Court being relied on
      • Breach of O 11 r 2 Rules of Court
  3. Substituted service
    • Outcome: The court saw no ground to set aside the order for substituted service.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether leave for substituted service should be set aside
      • Presence of evidence of impracticability to effect personal service

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration
  2. Account of Profits
  3. Damages
  4. Tracing Relief
  5. Interest
  6. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Injunctions

11. Industries

  • Oil and Gas

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SAHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR 629SingaporeApplied the principle in Siskina that a court has no power to grant Mareva interlocutory relief unless the defendant was amenable to the jurisdiction of the court in respect of a substantive cause of action.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading LtdUnknownYes[2006] 1 SLR 112SingaporeApplied the principle in Siskina 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 SAUnknownYes[1979] AC 210EnglandEstablished the principle that a court has no power to 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 CorpUnknownYes[2006] 3 SLR 854SingaporeAddressed the issue of giving assistance to foreign arbitrations as distinguished from foreign court proceedings.
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction LtdHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 334EnglandAddressed whether it was a necessary condition for the grant of an interlocutory injunction that it should be ancillary to a claim for relief to be granted by an English court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 11 r 1 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 11 r 2 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
Order 11 r 3(1), O 62 r 5 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 4(10) Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mareva injunction
  • Jurisdiction
  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Substituted service
  • Interlocutory relief
  • BVI action
  • Singapore action
  • Singapore Specific Assets
  • Dissipation of assets
  • Forum of choice

15.2 Keywords

  • Mareva injunction
  • Jurisdiction
  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Substituted service
  • Fraud
  • BVI
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Jurisdiction90
Civil Practice85
Injunctions75
Service of document out of jurisdiction60
Asset Recovery50

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Jurisdiction
  • Injunctions