Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies: Mareva Injunction & Foreign Proceedings

In Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies, Inc, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed whether a Mareva injunction could be granted against a defendant when the plaintiff intends to pursue foreign proceedings. The court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA, and Steven Chong JA, dismissed the appeal, holding that the intention to pursue foreign proceedings does not negate the court's power to grant a Mareva injunction, provided the court has the power to grant such an injunction against the particular defendant. The case involved claims of fraudulent misappropriation against Ms. Bi and Mr. Wu, with the respondents seeking a Mareva injunction to prevent asset disposal in Singapore.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court grants Mareva injunction against Bi Xiaoqiong, despite intention to pursue foreign proceedings, addressing the court's power.

1.7 Decision Date

29 September 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Bi Xiaoqiong	Appellant, Defendant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Tan Chau Yee of Eversheds Harry Elias LLP Hee Theng Fong of Eversheds Harry Elias LLP Sharmini Sharon Selvaratnam of Eversheds Harry Elias LLP Koh Fang Ling Andrea of Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation)	Respondent, Plaintiff	Corporation	Mareva Injunction Granted	Won	Chew Xiang of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Kelvin Poon Kin Mun of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Nigel Desmond Pereira of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Chow Jie Ying of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
CMED Technologies Ltd	Respondent, Plaintiff	Corporation	Mareva Injunction Granted	Won	Chew Xiang of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Kelvin Poon Kin Mun of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Nigel Desmond Pereira of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Chow Jie Ying of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Wu Xiaodong	Defendant	Individual	Mareva Injunction Granted	Lost

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Judge of Appeal	No
Judith Prakash	Judge of Appeal	Yes
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Judge of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Chau Yee	Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
Hee Theng Fong	Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
Sharmini Sharon Selvaratnam	Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
Koh Fang Ling Andrea	Eversheds Harry Elias LLP
Chew Xiang	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Kelvin Poon Kin Mun	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Nigel Desmond Pereira	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Chow Jie Ying	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

Liquidators of CMT alleged US$521.8m was fraudulently misappropriated.
Ms. Bi and Mr. Wu were married in 1995 and divorced in 2012.
Ms. Bi received US$17.6m from Mr. Wu or entities controlled by him.
Ms. Bi was unable to adequately explain the reasons for receiving the funds.
Ms. Bi attempted to sell the Coral Island Property and the Nevada Property.
Respondents commenced proceedings in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Respondents sought a Mareva injunction to prevent asset disposal.

5. Formal Citations

Bi Xiaoqiong (in her personal capacity and as trustee of the Xiao Qiong Bi Trust and the Alisa Wu Irrevocable Trust) v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and another, Civil Appeal No 188 of 2018, [2019] SGCA 50

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1995-01-01	Ms. Bi and Mr. Wu married.
2001-01-01	Ms. Bi and Mr. Wu separated.
2005-01-01	CMT raised capital of approximately US$631m.
2007-02-01	Respondents entered into transactions with Supreme Well Investments Limited.
2008-10-01	Respondents entered into transactions with Supreme Well Investments Limited.
2012-07-27	CMT was wound up.
2013-08-01	CMT commenced proceedings in Hong Kong (first HK Suit).
2016-12-23	Respondents commenced proceedings in Hong Kong (second HK Suit).
2017-12-11	Hong Kong High Court granted worldwide Mareva injunction.
2017-12-13	Respondents commenced Suit 1180 in Singapore and applied for Mareva injunctions.
2017-12-18	Writ of summons for Suit 1180 served on Ms. Bi.
2018-01-04	High Court granted ex parte Mareva injunction against Mr. Wu.
2018-02-20	Respondents applied to stay Suit 1180.
2018-08-13	Judicial Commissioner granted stay of proceedings and Mareva injunction against Ms. Bi.
2019-04-30	Appeal hearing.
2019-09-30	Grounds of decision delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Power to Grant Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that it has the power to grant a Mareva injunction against a defendant even if the plaintiff intends to pursue foreign proceedings.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
  - [1980] 1 All ER 213
  - [1979] AC 210
  - [2008] 3 SLR(R) 856
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 629
  - [1993] 2 WLR 262
  - [1996] 1 AC 284
  - [1996] 2 RCS 495
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112
  - [2006] 3 SLR(R) 854
  - [2015] 5 SLR 558
  - [2010] 2 SLR 589
  - [2001] Ch 437
  - (1999-2000) 2 ITELR 29
Knowing Receipt
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents had a good arguable case on the merits of their claim in knowing receipt.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 2 SLR 589
  - [2001] Ch 437
Risk of Dissipation of Assets
- Outcome: The court found that there was solid evidence to demonstrate a real risk of asset dissipation by the appellant.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 5 SLR 558

8. Remedies Sought

Mareva Injunction
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Breach of Trust
Conspiracy
Money Had and Received
Knowing Receipt
Unjust Enrichment
Dishonest Assistance

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Insolvency Litigation

11. Industries

Medical Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA	Unknown	Yes	[1980] 1 All ER 213	England and Wales	Established the principle of the Mareva injunction, a freezing order to restrain parties from disposing of assets before a claim is decided.
Siskina (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) and others v Distos Compania Naviera SA	House of Lords	Yes	[1979] AC 210	England and Wales	Established the requirements for granting Mareva injunctions, including in personam jurisdiction and a reasonable accrued cause of action.
Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 856	Singapore	Exemplifies the divergence of views on the ambit of Section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act regarding Mareva injunctions.
Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd and another v Toh Chun Toh Gordon and others	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000	Singapore	Exemplifies the divergence of views on the ambit of Section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act regarding Mareva injunctions.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Unknown	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited for the principles guiding statutory interpretation.
Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others	Unknown	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 659	Singapore	Cited for the principles guiding statutory interpretation.
Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 629	Singapore	Addressed whether a Mareva injunction could be granted in support of foreign arbitral proceedings.
Pettitt v Pettitt	Unknown	Yes	[1970] AC 777	England and Wales	Cited regarding statutory interpretation.
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and another v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and others	House of Lords	Yes	[1993] 2 WLR 262	England and Wales	Addressed the court's power to grant interim injunctions in support of a cause of action subject to foreign arbitration.
Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck	Privy Council	Yes	[1996] 1 AC 284	Hong Kong	Addressed the requirements for granting Mareva injunctions against foreigners with assets in Hong Kong.
Canadian Pacific Limited v Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Canadian Pacific System Federation	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[1996] 2 RCS 495	Canada	Addressed the court's jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions pending a hearing before an arbitrator.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112	Singapore	Addressed the court's jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings.
Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 854	Singapore	Addressed the court's jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in support of foreign arbitral proceedings.
China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation and another v Wu Xiaodong and another	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 178	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from.
Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1097	Singapore	Acknowledged that an action in Singapore can be brought to obtain security by way of a Mareva injunction.
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	Outlines the requirements for the grant of a Mareva injunction.
George Raymond Zage III and another v Ho Chi Kwong and another	Unknown	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 589	Singapore	Outlines the elements of a claim in knowing receipt.
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele	Unknown	Yes	[2001] Ch 437	England and Wales	Formulated the test for 'knowledge' in a claim for knowing receipt.
Meespierson (Bahamas) Limited and others v Grupo Torras SA and another	Bahamas Court of Appeal	Yes	(1999-2000) 2 ITELR 29	Bahamas	Addressed the power to grant a free-standing Mareva injunction.
Bi Xiaoqiong (in her personal capacity and as trustee of the Xiao Qiong Bi Trust and the Alisa Wu Irrevocable Trust) v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] SGCA 50	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) (HK)	Hong Kong
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Ed Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Mareva Injunction
Knowing Receipt
Dissipation of Assets
Fraudulent Misappropriation
Foreign Proceedings
Accrued Cause of Action
In Personam Jurisdiction
Good Arguable Case
Liquidators
Beneficial Receipt

15.2 Keywords

Mareva Injunction
Foreign Proceedings
Civil Law Act
Fraud
Knowing Receipt
Asset Dissipation
Singapore Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Mareva Injunctions	95
Injunctions	90
Civil Procedure	70
Fraud and Deceit	60
Fiduciary Duties	50
Asset Recovery	40
Trust Law	40
Appeal	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Injunctions
Mareva Injunctions
Jurisdiction
Fraud
Trusts
Equity