Wang Cheng v Song Fanrong: Contempt of Court for Mareva Order Breach
In Wang Cheng, Liu Guohui, and Chen Xiaopu v Song Fanrong, Teo Kuei Yang, Nanyang Venture Capital Pte Ltd, and Friedrich Frobel Holding Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed a committal application for contempt of court. The plaintiffs sought to hold Song Fanrong, Teo Kuei Yang, and Friedrich Frobel Holding Pte Ltd in contempt for violating a Mareva injunction. The court found the first, second, and fourth defendants to be in contempt of the Mareva Order. The first defendant was sentenced to one month’s jail for contempt of court. The second defendant was sentenced to two weeks’ jail for contempt of court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
The court found the first, second, and fourth defendants to be in contempt of the Mareva Order. The first defendant was sentenced to one month’s jail for contempt of court. The second defendant was sentenced to two weeks’ jail for contempt of court.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court found Song Fanrong and Teo Kuei Yang in contempt of court for breaching a Mareva order by attempting to dispose of assets.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang Cheng | Plaintiff | Individual | Successful in Committal Application | Won | |
| Liu Guohui | Plaintiff | Individual | Successful in Committal Application | Won | |
| Chen Xiaopu | Plaintiff | Individual | Successful in Committal Application | Won | |
| Song Fanrong | Defendant | Individual | Found in Contempt of Court | Lost | |
| Teo Kuei Yang | Defendant | Individual | Found in Contempt of Court | Lost | |
| Nanyang Venture Capital Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Not involved in proceedings | Neutral | |
| Friedrich Frobel Holding Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Found in Contempt of Court | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs applied for a committal order against the defendants for failing to comply with a Mareva injunction.
- The Mareva Order restrained the defendants from disposing of assets in Singapore up to S$9,456,833.73.
- The first defendant was the sole director and major shareholder of the fourth defendant.
- The first defendant had previously breached the Mareva Order and was serving a prison sentence.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant, with the second defendant's connivance, continued to commit further acts of contempt.
- The defendants attempted to dispose of the shareholdings of the fourth defendant in several companies/kindergartens.
- The second defendant denied breaching the Mareva Order, contending there was no dissipation of shareholding.
5. Formal Citations
- Wang Cheng and others v Song Fanrong and others, Suit No 211 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 102
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mareva injunction order issued | |
| First defendant involved with a chat group seeking to sell the fourth defendant’s shareholdings in a kindergarten. | |
| First defendant found in contempt by another court. | |
| Second defendant engaged in a conversation seeking to sell four kindergartens of the fourth defendant for S$2m. | |
| Defendants’ solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs’ solicitors to inquire if the plaintiffs were willing to consider allowing the defendants to sell off the fourth defendant’s assets. | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors replied to the defendants’ solicitors. | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors sent a further letter to the defendants’ solicitors. | |
| Second defendant discharged TJC as his solicitors and appointed Fortis. | |
| First defendant sentenced to another five months’ imprisonment. | |
| Fortis wrote to the plaintiffs’ solicitors attempting to distance the second defendant from the first and fourth defendants. | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors replied to Fortis’ letter. | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors filed the 7th affidavit. | |
| First defendant filed a bankruptcy petition and declared herself a bankrupt. | |
| Second defendant filed an affidavit. | |
| Court found the three defendants to be in contempt of the Mareva Order. | |
| A stay on the execution of the order of court made on 21 November 2017 was granted on the application of the second defendant. | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Mareva Order
- Outcome: The court found the first, second, and fourth defendants to be in contempt of the Mareva Order.
- Category: Substantive
- Civil Contempt
- Outcome: The court found the first, second, and fourth defendants to be in contempt of the Mareva Order.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Committal Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Education
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
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 Order
- Contempt of Court
- Committal Application
- Dissipation of Assets
- Kindergarten
- Shareholding
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva Order
- Contempt of Court
- Singapore
- Injunction
- Assets
- Kindergarten
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mareva Injunctions | 95 |
| Civil Contempt | 95 |
| Injunctions | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Company Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Contempt of Court
- Injunctions