China Medical Technologies v Wu Xiaodong: Mareva Injunction & Foreign Proceedings
China Medical Technologies, Inc. (in liquidation) and CMED Technologies Ltd. sued Wu Xiaodong and Bi Xiaoqiong in the High Court of Singapore, seeking a Mareva injunction in aid of Hong Kong proceedings related to fraudulent misappropriation. The court granted the Mareva injunction against Bi Xiaoqiong, prohibiting the disposal of assets in Singapore, and allowed the stay of Suit 1180, recognizing Hong Kong as the more appropriate forum for the dispute.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Mareva injunction granted against Bi Xiaoqiong and stay of Suit 1180 allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court considers granting a Mareva injunction in aid of Hong Kong proceedings against Wu Xiaodong and Bi Xiaoqiong.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bi Xiaoqiong | Defendant | Individual | Mareva injunction granted | Lost | |
| China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Mareva injunction granted against Bi Xiaoqiong | Partial | |
| CMED Technologies Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Mareva injunction granted against Bi Xiaoqiong | Partial | |
| Wu Xiaodong | Defendant | Individual | Mareva injunction granted against Bi Xiaoqiong | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- China Medical Technologies, Inc. (P1) claimed fraudulent misappropriation of US$521.8m.
- Wu Xiaodong was the founder, chairman, CEO, and largest shareholder of P1.
- Bi Xiaoqiong is Wu Xiaodong's ex-wife.
- P1 and P2 commenced actions in the Hong Kong High Court against Wu and Bi.
- P1 and P2 filed a writ in Singapore seeking a Mareva injunction against Wu and Bi.
- Bi Xiaoqiong received US$17.6m from entities associated with Wu.
- Bi Xiaoqiong attempted to sell the Coral Island property.
5. Formal Citations
- China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and another v Wu Xiaodong and another, Suit No 1180 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 178
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| China Medical Technologies, Inc. incorporated in the Cayman Islands. | |
| China Medical Technologies, Inc. acquired medical technologies. | |
| China Medical Technologies, Inc. acquired medical technologies. | |
| China Medical Technologies, Inc. wound up. | |
| Wu Xiaodong and Bi Xiaoqiong entered into a divorce agreement. | |
| China Medical Technologies, Inc. commenced action in Hong Kong High Court (first HK suit). | |
| China Medical Technologies, Inc. commenced action in Hong Kong High Court (second HK suit). | |
| Writ in the second HK suit served on Bi Xiaoqiong's solicitors. | |
| Wu Xiaodong and Bi Xiaoqiong attempted to sell the Coral Island property. | |
| Hong Kong court granted a worldwide Mareva injunction against Wu Xiaodong and Bi Xiaoqiong. | |
| China Medical Technologies, Inc. filed a writ in Singapore (Suit 1180) and applied for a Mareva injunction. | |
| Bi Xiaoqiong was served with the writ for Suit 1180, papers for SUM 5689, and the Hong Kong injunction order. | |
| Singapore court granted the Mareva injunction (ex parte) against Wu Xiaodong. | |
| Plaintiffs applied to stay Suit 1180. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Court's power to grant Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that it is empowered under s 4(10) of the Civil Law Act to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings, subject to certain prerequisites.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Whether there is good arguable case
- Outcome: The court found that there was a good arguable case against both Wu Xiaodong and Bi Xiaoqiong.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether there is real risk of asset dissipation
- Outcome: The court found that there was a real risk of asset dissipation by Bi Xiaoqiong.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Mareva injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of fiduciary duties
- Breach of trust
- Fraud
- Conspiracy
- Knowing receipt
- Dishonest assistance
- Money had and received
- Restitution
- Unjust enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of jurisdiction. |
| Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 856 | Singapore | Discusses the court's jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings. |
| Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd and another v Toh Chun Toh Gordon and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000 | Singapore | Discusses the court's residual jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction even when the Singapore action is stayed. |
| Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 629 | Singapore | Discusses the court's power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign arbitrations. |
| Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 854 | Singapore | Discusses the court's power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of a foreign arbitration. |
| Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA | N/A | Yes | [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509 | England and Wales | Seminal case on Mareva injunctions. |
| Art Trend Ltd v Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Case on Mareva injunctions. |
| Babanaft International Co. SA v Bassatne and another | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 Ch 13 | England and Wales | Case on worldwide Mareva injunctions. |
| Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and another v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1993] AC 334 | England and Wales | Discusses the court's power to grant an interlocutory injunction when proceedings are stayed for arbitration abroad. |
| South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij “De Zeven Provincien” NV | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 24 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the power conferred by s 37(1) of the UK SCA 1981. |
| Siskina (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA | House of Lords | Yes | [1979] AC 210 | England and Wales | Discusses the principles for granting Mareva relief. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Discusses the principles arising out of The Siskina. |
| Canadian Pacific Limited v Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System Federation | Supreme Court | Yes | [1996] 2 RCS 495 | Canada | Discusses the jurisdiction to grant an injunction where there is a justiciable right. |
| Construction Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Tambel (Australasia) Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1984] 1 NSWLR 274 | Australia | Freezing order may be granted even where there is no primary proceeding in the court. |
| Davis v Turning Properties Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | (2005) 222 ALR 676 | Australia | Freezing order made in support of a worldwide freezing order issued in the Bahamas. |
| Celtic Resources Holdings Plc v Arduina Holding BV | N/A | Yes | [2006] WASC 68 | Australia | Freezing order in relation to assets in Australia in aid of foreign proceedings. |
| PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | (2014) 320 ALR 289 | Australia | Granting of a freezing order by the local court in aid of a prospective foreign judgment. |
| Solvalub Ltd v Match Investments Ltd | Jersey Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] IL Pr 419 | Jersey | Court has power to grant Mareva injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings. |
| Meespierson (Bahamas) Limited v Grupo Torras SA | N/A | Yes | (1999–2000) 2 ITELR 29 | Bahamas | Court has no power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings. |
| Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 AC 284 | N/A | Explains the purpose of a Mareva relief. |
| Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1097 | Singapore | Discusses the doctrine of forum election. |
| Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 558 | Singapore | Defines a good arguable case. |
| George Raymond Zage III and another v Ho Chi Kwong and another | N/A | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 589 | Singapore | Defines dishonest assistance and knowing receipt. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Underlying basis for action for money had and received is unjust enrichment. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | N/A | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Elements to be satisfied for unjust enrichment. |
| Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd | N/A | Yes | (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586 | Hong Kong | Mareva relief would be granted so long as it could be shown that there was a good arguable case before the foreign court. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 27 | Singapore | Applicable legal principles in relation to whether a real risk of dissipation existed. |
| Madoff Securities International Limited v Stephen Ernest John Raven | N/A | Yes | [2011] EWHC 3102 | England and Wales | Delay in applying for the Mareva injunction may be taken against the plaintiff. |
| SCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri | N/A | Yes | [1985] 2 All ER 747 | N/A | An injunction can be granted against Bi to prevent her from disposing of moneys in the UOB account and Credit Suisee AG account held in the names of WB International and Long Chart respectively, as the moneys in those accounts are in truth Bi’s assets. |
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 |
| Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva injunction
- Fraudulent misappropriation
- Asset dissipation
- Good arguable case
- In personam jurisdiction
- Justiciable
- Knowing receipt
- Dishonest assistance
- Unjust enrichment
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva injunction
- Foreign proceedings
- Fraud
- Asset dissipation
- Singapore
- Hong Kong
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Injunctions | 95 |
| Mareva Injunctions | 95 |
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Asset Dissipation | 70 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 60 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 50 |
| Trust Law | 40 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Mareva Injunctions
- Jurisdiction