Sumifru Singapore Pte Ltd v Felix Santos Ishizuka: Variation of Mareva Injunction
In Sumifru Singapore Pte Ltd v Felix Santos Ishizuka and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiff's application to vary a Mareva injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant, Felix Santos Ishizuka, breached his duties, acquiring secret profits through the second and third defendant companies. The court considered whether the Mareva Injunction ought to be further varied, and, if so, what the scope of such variation ought to be. The court allowed the plaintiff's application in part, ordering additional disclosures and restrictions on withdrawals to ensure compliance with the injunction and prevent asset dissipation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered varying a Mareva injunction against Felix Santos Ishizuka and others, focusing on the 'Ordinary Course exception' and potential asset dissipation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sumifru Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application allowed in part | Partial | Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad, Dharini Ravi |
| Felix Santos Ishizuka | Defendant | Individual | Application partially allowed | Partial | Khoo Ching Shin Shem, Teo Hee Sheng, Christian, Yong Zhixin, Esther |
| Multiport Maritime Corporation | Defendant | Corporation | Application partially allowed | Partial | Khoo Ching Shin Shem, Teo Hee Sheng, Christian, Yong Zhixin, Esther |
| Multiport Maritime Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application partially allowed | Partial | Khoo Ching Shin Shem, Teo Hee Sheng, Christian, Yong Zhixin, Esther |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Dharini Ravi | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Khoo Ching Shin Shem | Focus Law Asia LLC |
| Teo Hee Sheng, Christian | Focus Law Asia LLC |
| Yong Zhixin, Esther | Focus Law Asia LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction against the defendants.
- The Mareva Injunction was granted, subject to the Ordinary Course exception.
- Defendants made substantial withdrawals from the OCBC Account.
- Plaintiff filed SUM 3820/2019 to restrict the defendants' use of the Ordinary Course exception.
- Ang SJ ordered the defendants to make full disclosure and repay business proceeds.
- Plaintiff initiated SUM 4746/2019, alleging false statements and disclosures by the defendants.
- The defendants' rice trade was alleged to be illegal in the Philippines.
5. Formal Citations
- Sumifru Singapore Pte Ltd v Felix Santos Ishizuka and others, Suit No 310 of 2018(Summons No 4746 of 2019), [2020] SGHC 07
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First defendant deposed on the second defendant’s behalf that the sole asset of the second defendant was its Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited Bank Account, which had a “value” of US$3,733,903.08. | |
| Defendants notified the plaintiff that it would be making a range of withdrawals from the OCBC Account. | |
| Defendants notified the plaintiff that it would be making a range of withdrawals from the OCBC Account. | |
| Defendants notified the plaintiff of an intended withdrawal for the sum of US$161,220. | |
| First hearing of the summons. | |
| Felix Santos Ishizuka’s 20th Affidavit. | |
| Substantive hearing of the present summons. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Variation of Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application in part, ordering additional disclosures and restrictions on withdrawals.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 558
- [2019] 3 SLR 836
- [2010] EWHC 1532
- [2006] EWHC 602 (Comm)
- [2003] EWHC 2560 (Ch)
- [2015] EWHC 1949 (Ch)
- Risk of Dissipation of Assets
- Outcome: The court considered the risk of dissipation of assets in determining whether to vary the Mareva Injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 558
8. Remedies Sought
- Variation of Mareva Injunction
- Compliance with Disclosure order
- Fuller disclosure orders
- Leave to cross-examine the first defendant
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of implied duties of good faith and fidelity
- Breach of fiduciary duties
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Commodities Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 description of Mareva injunctions as “nuclear weapons” of civil litigation and the risk of dissipation of assets. |
| Sea Trucks Offshore Ltd and others v Roomans, Jacobus Johannes and others | N/A | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 836 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has the power to vary a Mareva injunction that has been granted. |
| Abbey Forwarding Limited v Hone & others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2010] EWHC 1532 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has the power to vary a Mareva injunction that has been granted. |
| Compagnie Noga D'Importation et D'Exportation SA and another v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2006] EWHC 602 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the essential test of whether it is in the interests of justice to make the variation sought and the healthy scepticism about assertions made by the defendant. |
| Zakharov and others v White and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2003] EWHC 2560 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has to balance two competing interests in determining whether a variation of a Mareva injunction is warranted. |
| Thevarajah v Riordan and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2015] EWHC 1949 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited as a case that demonstrates the application of the principles in determining whether a variation of a Mareva injunction is warranted. |
| The “Nagasaki Spirit” | N/A | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 878 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sole purpose of the Mareva injunction is the prohibition of dealings by the defendant in order to defeat a judgment against him. |
| A J Bekhor & Co Ltd v Bilton | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 2 All ER 565 | England and Wales | Cited for the means of policing the Mareva injunction is to order the cross-examination of the defendant on his affidavit. |
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
- Ordinary Course exception
- Dissipation of assets
- Disclosure order
- Repayment order
- Rice trade
- Business proceeds
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva Injunction
- Variation
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore
- Asset Dissipation
- Sumifru
- Felix Santos Ishizuka
- Multiport Maritime
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Commercial Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Mareva Injunctions