Sea Trucks Offshore Ltd v Roomans: Mareva Injunctions & Disclosure Obligations
In Sea Trucks Offshore Ltd and others v Jacobus Johannes Roomans and others, the Singapore High Court addressed an application to vary disclosure obligations under a Mareva injunction. The plaintiffs, Sea Trucks Offshore Ltd, Consolidated Projects Ltd, West African Ventures (C.I.) Ltd, and Sea Trucks Group Limited (in liquidation), sought to recover payments allegedly made wrongfully from the defendants, Jacobus Johannes Roomans, Mariah Binte Mahat, Al Shouf Trading FZC, and Kwong Soon Engineering Company Pte Ltd. The first and second defendants applied to vary their disclosure obligations, arguing that they had disclosed sufficient assets. The court disallowed the application, finding the defendants had been evasive and uncooperative in their compliance with disclosure obligations.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application to vary the disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction disallowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on varying disclosure obligations ancillary to a Mareva injunction. The court disallowed the application to vary the disclosure obligations.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sea Trucks Offshore Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to vary the disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction disallowed. | Won | Daniel Chia, Christine Ong |
| Consolidated Projects Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to vary the disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction disallowed. | Won | Daniel Chia, Christine Ong |
| West African Ventures (C.I.) Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to vary the disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction disallowed. | Won | Daniel Chia, Christine Ong |
| Sea Trucks Group Limited (in liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to vary the disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction disallowed. | Won | Daniel Chia, Christine Ong |
| Jacobus Johannes Roomans | Defendant | Individual | Application to vary the disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction disallowed. | Lost | Teh Kee Wee Lawrence, Ravin Periasamy, Chan Wai Yi Kevin |
| Mariah Binte Mahat | Defendant | Individual | Application to vary the disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction disallowed. | Lost | Teh Kee Wee Lawrence, Ravin Periasamy, Chan Wai Yi Kevin |
| Al Shouf Trading FZC | Defendant | Corporation | No specific outcome for this party was mentioned in the text. | Neutral | |
| Kwong Soon Engineering Company Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | No specific outcome for this party was mentioned in the text. | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Daniel Chia | Coleman Street Chambers LLC |
| Christine Ong | Coleman Street Chambers LLC |
| Teh Kee Wee Lawrence | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Ravin Periasamy | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Chan Wai Yi Kevin | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants for certain payments that were allegedly made wrongfully.
- Plaintiffs obtained a Mareva injunction against the first and second defendants.
- The Mareva injunction prohibited the defendants from dealing with assets up to a certain value.
- The Mareva injunction required the defendants to disclose the details of all their assets.
- The first and second defendants filed three joint affidavits of disclosure, disclosing some, but not all, of their assets.
- The first and second defendants applied to the court to limit the disclosure obligations.
- The court disallowed the application to vary the disclosure obligations.
5. Formal Citations
- Sea Trucks Offshore Ltd and others v Roomans, Jacobus Johannes and others, Suit No 113 of 2018 (Summons No 1488 of 2018), [2018] SGHC 248
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sea Trucks Group Limited placed in liquidation | |
| Suit No 113 of 2018 commenced by plaintiffs | |
| Mareva injunction granted against first and second defendants | |
| Claim documents and Mareva injunction served on first and second defendants | |
| First and second defendants' lawyers requested variation of disclosure order | |
| Plaintiffs' lawyers rejected the proposal to vary the disclosure obligation | |
| First joint affidavit filed by first and second defendants | |
| First and second defendants' lawyers stated there was no further utility to disclosing further information about their assets | |
| Plaintiffs' lawyers stated they would take steps to enforce the Freezing Injunction | |
| SUM 1488 filed by first and second defendants seeking to vary their disclosure obligations | |
| Second joint affidavit filed by first and second defendants | |
| Plaintiffs indicated they intended to file an application to cross-examine the first and second defendants | |
| Fourth joint affidavit filed by first and second defendants | |
| SUM 2031 filed by plaintiffs seeking to cross-examine the first and second defendants | |
| Hearing of SUM 1488 and SUM 2031 | |
| First and second defendants' lawyers stated the first and second defendants would observe their disclosure obligations | |
| First and second defendants' lawyers asked for further arguments in respect of the variation of their disclosure obligations | |
| First and second defendants' lawyers made a second disclosure of information by letter | |
| Plaintiffs' lawyers rejected the first and second defendants' approach of disclosing their assets in stages | |
| Summons No 2323 of 2018 filed by plaintiffs seeking leave to commence committal proceedings against the first and second defendants | |
| First and second defendants filed Summons No 2402 of 2018, seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision in relation to the variation application | |
| Sixth joint affidavit filed by first and second defendants | |
| Further arguments heard | |
| Draft affidavit filed | |
| First and second defendants filed Summons No 2873 of 2018, seeking to have the entire Mareva injunction set aside | |
| First and second defendants filed Summons No 2975 of 2018, seeking to stay the underlying proceedings in favour of the courts of Nigeria | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Variation of disclosure obligations ancillary to Mareva injunctions
- Outcome: The court held that the disclosure obligations should not be varied and that the defendants were required to make full disclosure of their assets.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Extent of disclosure required under a Mareva injunction
- Whether disclosure obligations should be limited to the sums restrained by the Mareva injunction
8. Remedies Sought
- Recovery of payments
- Mareva injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of directors’ duties
- Breach of fiduciary duties
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Oil and Gas
- Construction
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] 4 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a Mareva injunction does not give the plaintiff security or a proprietary interest over the defendant’s assets, but simply restrains the assets from being moved. |
| Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 558 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the disclosure order is an integral part of the court’s Mareva jurisdiction and an ordinary adjunct to a Mareva injunction. |
| Wallace Kevin James v Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 61 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a 'realistic' approach must be taken in relation to the disclosure of assets by the defendant, in the sense that the value of the assets in the affidavit is often 'rough and ready'. |
| 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 widely-phrased disclosure obligations are the norm rather than the exception, and have even been described as being the 'standard terms' on which a disclosure order ancillary to a Mareva injunction is made. |
| Petromar Energy Resources Pte Ltd v Glencore International AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1152 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that it is only in situations where the disclosure order has imposed obligations over and above what is necessary to police the Mareva injunction that the court has stepped in to attenuate the disclosure obligations. |
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
- Disclosure obligations
- Variation of disclosure obligations
- Assets
- Affidavit of disclosure
- Liquidators
- Liquidated damages
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva injunction
- disclosure obligations
- assets
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Disclosure
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Mareva Injunctions