Lee Shieh-Peen Clement v Ho Chin Nguang: Breach of Mareva Injunction & Asset Disclosure
Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and Kong Yew Seng appealed against the High Court's decision that Ho Chin Nguang and Ng Sow Moi did not breach a Mareva injunction. The Court of Appeal, with Chao Hick Tin JA delivering the judgment, allowed the appeal, holding that the Respondents were in breach of the Mareva injunction for failing to disclose assets and the source of funds used for expenses. The case involved a claim to recover the sum of S$5.07 million to S$5.1 million.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding breach of Mareva injunction. Court of Appeal held the respondents were in breach for failing to disclose assets.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Shieh-Peen Clement | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Kong Yew Seng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Ho Chin Nguang | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ng Sow Moi | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V. K. Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Appellants entered into a joint venture with Ho to incorporate a Chinese company for a Gold Mining Project in Myanmar.
- Appellants issued two cheques for S$4 million to Ho for the first project.
- Kong Yew Seng transferred another S$4 million to Ho’s bank account for a potential joint investment in an iron ore mine in China.
- Ho returned a total of S$1.61 million to the Appellants.
- Appellants commenced Suit 285 of 2009 to recover S$5.07 million to S$5.1 million.
- Appellants obtained an ex parte interim Mareva injunction against Ho, Ng and May Ing.
- Appellants withdrew their claim against May Ing, and a final Mareva injunction was issued against Ho and Ng.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others, Civil Appeal No 17 of 2010, [2010] SGCA 34
- Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others, , [2010] SGHC 12
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellants entered into a joint venture with Ho to incorporate a Chinese company. | |
| Appellants issued two cheques for S$4 million to Ho. | |
| Kong Yew Seng transferred S$4 million to Ho's bank account. | |
| Ho returned S$1.61 million to the Appellants. | |
| Appellants commenced Suit 285 of 2009. | |
| Appellants obtained an ex parte interim Mareva injunction. | |
| Final Mareva injunction issued against Ho and Ng. | |
| Appellants obtained leave to apply for an order of committal against the Respondents. | |
| Committal application heard by the Judge. | |
| Appeal allowed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the Respondents were in breach of the Mareva injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose assets
- Failure to declare source of funds
- Related Cases:
- [2010] SGHC 12
- Asset Disclosure
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Respondents had disclosed sufficient details of their assets pursuant to clause 2 of the Order.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of asset details
- Valuation of private company shares
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 4 SLR(R) 74
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Mareva Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Mining
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 12 | Singapore | The decision being appealed from, regarding whether the Respondents were in breach of, or in contempt of, a Mareva injunction. |
| Re Tan Khee Eng John | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 870 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of respecting and obeying orders of court. |
| Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the court's power to ensure its orders are not contravened or thwarted. |
| Jasa Keramat Sdn Bhd v Monatech (M) Sdn Bhd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 MLJ 577 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that courts will guard against interference with the administration of justice. |
| Pan-United Marine Ltd v Chief Assessor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 569 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of obeying both the letter and the spirit of the law. |
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 74 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Mareva jurisdiction extends to all assets, including choses in action like salary. |
| Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank | House of Lords | Yes | [2006] 3 WLR 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the purpose of a freezing injunction, which is to restrain a defendant from disposing of assets to defeat a likely judgment. |
| Polly Peck International plc v Nadir and others (No 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 4 All ER 769 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the ownership of assets does not change with a freezing injunction, only the right to deal with them. |
| Pertamina | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1978] 1QB 644 | England and Wales | Cited for the need to prevent a defendant snapping his fingers at a judgment of the court with financial impunity. |
| Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL | High Court | Yes | [1982] 1 QB 558 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a Mareva injunction operates from the moment it is granted. |
| TDK Tape Distributor (UK) Ltd v Videochoice Ltd and Others | High Court | Yes | [1986] 1 WLR 141 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a Mareva injunction encompasses assets acquired after the date the injunction was granted. |
| Soinco SACI and Another v Novokuznetsk Aluminium Plant and Others | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 WLR 334 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that assets of a trading company caught by a Mareva order are not confined to those in existence at the date of the order. |
| Yukilon Manufacturing Sdn Bhd & Anor v Dato ‘ Wong Gek Ming & Ors (No 4) | High Court | Yes | [1998] 7 MLJ 551 | Malaysia | Cited for adopting Skinner J’s reasoning in TDK Tape. |
| Save Power Limited v Arthur Tse Lup Kee | High Court | Yes | [1995] HKEC 353 | Hong Kong | Cited for adopting Skinner J’s reasoning in TDK Tape. |
| Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software Alliance | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 592 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to punish for contempt summarily is intended to enable the court to deal with conduct which would adversely affect the administration of justice. |
| P J Holdings Inc v Ariel Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'refuse or neglect' in the context of court orders. |
| Re Quintin Dick | High Court | Yes | [1926] Ch 992 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that 'refuse or neglect' implies a conscious act of volition. |
| Ng Tai Tuan v Chng Gim Huat Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 231 | Singapore | Cited for the view that 'neglect' necessarily implies some element of fault. |
| In re London and Paris Banking Corporation | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1874] LR 19 Eq 444 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of negligence in paying a debt on demand. |
| DP Vijandran v Majlis Peguam | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 MLJ 391 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of 'refuse' as to decline to give. |
| Lowson v Percy Main & District Social Club & Institute Ltd | Employment Appeal Tribunal | Yes | [1979] ICR 568 | England and Wales | Cited for the sentiment that failure is not synonymous with refusal. |
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
- Asset disclosure
- Monthly allowance
- PT Mega Fortune
- Affidavit of assets
- Ordinary living expenses
- Legal expenses
- Shareholding
- Private companies
- Contempt of court
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva injunction
- asset disclosure
- contempt of court
- Singapore
- civil appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mareva Injunctions | 95 |
| Injunctions | 90 |
| Judgments and Orders | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Contempt of Court