AYK v AYM: Mareva Injunction Granted in Aid of Arbitration Enforcement

In AYK and another v AYM, the Singapore High Court granted a Mareva injunction against AYM on 22 July 2015, preventing him from dealing with his assets pending satisfaction of a Final Award from arbitration commenced in 2013. The plaintiffs, AYK and AYL, sought the injunction due to concerns that AYM was dissipating assets to avoid fulfilling his obligations under the award. The court dismissed AYM's application to set aside the Final Award and the Singapore Enforcement Orders, finding a real risk of asset dissipation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' application for a Mareva injunction allowed in modified terms.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court granted a Mareva injunction against AYM to prevent asset dissipation pending enforcement of a Final Arbitration Award.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AYKPlaintiffOtherApplication for a Mareva injunction allowed in modified termsWon
AYLPlaintiffOtherApplication for a Mareva injunction allowed in modified termsWon
AYMDefendantIndividualInjunction granted against the defendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ho Wei JieWongPartnership LLP
Andre ManiamWongPartnership LLP
Adeline OngWongPartnership LLP
Francis XavierRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Derek OnRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tee Su MienRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs sought to enforce a Final Award from arbitration commenced in 2013.
  2. The Final Award ordered the defendant to transfer assets worth US$173m to the plaintiffs.
  3. Plaintiffs applied for a Mareva injunction to prevent the defendant from disposing of assets.
  4. Defendant applied to set aside the Final Award and the Singapore Enforcement Orders.
  5. The defendant had been disposing of assets since the commencement of arbitration proceedings.
  6. The defendant sold his stake in Inter Milan shortly after the arbitration commenced.
  7. The defendant sold the US House after JP Morgan requested he sell it to repay the mortgage.

5. Formal Citations

  1. AYK and another v AYM, HC/Originating Summons No 98 of 2015 (HC/Summons No 2438 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 329

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Deed entered into by the parties
Plaintiffs gave Notice of Arbitration
Final Award dated
Plaintiffs initiated proceedings to enforce Final Award
Plaintiffs obtained leave to enforce the Final Award
Plaintiffs obtained leave to enforce the Final Award
Defendant filed originating summons seeking to set aside the Final Award
Plaintiffs filed application for an injunction
Defendant filed application to set aside the Singapore Enforcement Orders
Mareva injunction issued against the defendant
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Arbitration Award
    • Outcome: The court upheld the validity of the Singapore Enforcement Orders, paving the way for enforcement of the Final Award.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Mareva Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a real risk of the defendant dissipating assets to frustrate the plaintiffs' attempts to satisfy their judgment.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Setting Aside Arbitration Award
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the Final Award, finding his grounds to be flimsy.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Mareva Injunction
  2. Enforcement of Arbitral Award

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Enforcement of Arbitral Award

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
UnknownHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 300SingaporeReasons for dismissing the defendant’s application to set aside the Final Award and the Singapore Enforcement Orders.
Strandore Invest A/S v Soh Kim WatHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 151SingaporeCited as an example of a case in which the court had exercised its power to grant a worldwide Mareva injunction in aid of enforcement of a foreign arbitration award.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed), Order 69A r 6
Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, r 3

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed), s 19Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed), s 4(10)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Arbitration
  • Final Award
  • Asset Dissipation
  • Singapore Enforcement Orders

15.2 Keywords

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Arbitration
  • Asset Dissipation
  • Enforcement
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions90
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards80
Arbitration70
Contract Law60
Commercial Disputes50
Banking and Finance30
Property Disputes20

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Injunctions
  • Civil Procedure