JTrust Asia v Group Lease: Post-Judgment Mareva Injunctions & Undertakings
In JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed issues relating to post-judgment Mareva injunctions. JTrust Asia sought to extend a worldwide Mareva injunction against Group Lease Holdings and a domestic Mareva injunction against Mitsuji Konoshita, while the respondents applied to reduce the enjoined quantum. The court ordered the Mareva injunctions be extended until the judgment debt and costs are satisfied, but reduced the enjoined sum to US$50 million. The court disallowed the appellant from being released from their undertakings, but if they wish to commence proceedings elsewhere, they may apply to court for leave. The court also ordered R1 and R2 to file a fresh affidavit of disclosure within three weeks of this judgment, listing out their assets up to the collective value of US$100 million.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal addresses post-judgment Mareva injunctions, setting requirements for extension and release from undertakings. Appeal allowed in part.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Injunction extended, quantum reduced | Partial | |
| Mitsuji Konoshita | Respondent | Individual | Injunction extended, quantum reduced | Partial | |
| Adalene Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Liable for torts of deceit and conspiracy | Lost | |
| Bellaven Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Liable for torts of deceit and conspiracy | Lost | |
| Aref Holdings Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Liable for torts of deceit and conspiracy | Lost | |
| Baguera Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Liable for torts of deceit and conspiracy | Lost | |
| Cougar Pacific Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Liable for torts of deceit and conspiracy | Lost | |
| Yoichi Kuga | Respondent | Individual | Liable for torts of deceit and conspiracy | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Quentin Loh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Appellant brought proceedings against the respondents for deceit and conspiracy.
- Worldwide Mareva injunctions were granted against R1 and R3, while a domestic Mareva injunction was granted against R2.
- High Court dismissed the appellant’s claim.
- Court reversed the High Court’s decision and found the first to seventh respondents liable for the torts of deceit and conspiracy.
- The first to seventh respondents were ordered to be jointly and severally liable to the appellant for the total sum of US$70,006,122.49 and S$131,817.80.
- Court extended the reinstated Mareva injunctions by 60 days but agreed to reduce their quantum to an unencumbered value of US$72 million.
- Appellant filed SUM 132 to seek an order for the reinstated Mareva injunctions to continue to be in effect.
5. Formal Citations
- JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others, Civil Appeal No 21 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Proceedings brought against the respondents for deceit and conspiracy in HC/S 1212/2017. | |
| Court reversed the High Court’s decision and found the first to seventh respondents liable for the torts of deceit and conspiracy. | |
| Court extended the reinstated Mareva injunctions by 60 days but agreed to reduce their quantum to an unencumbered value of US$72 million. | |
| Appellant filed SUM 132 to seek an order for the reinstated Mareva injunctions to continue to be in effect. | |
| R1 and R2 filed SUM 133 to seek an order for the enjoined quantum of US$180 million in the reinstated Mareva injunctions to be reduced to US$72 million. | |
| Court ordered the reinstated Mareva injunctions against R1 and R2 to continue until the disposal of SUM 132 and SUM 133. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Post-judgment Mareva injunctions
- Outcome: The court set out the requirements to obtain a post-judgment Mareva injunction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Dissipation of assets
- Aid to execution
- Interests of justice
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 762
- Release from undertaking
- Outcome: The court set out the conditions that must be met before a plaintiff who has obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction may be released from the undertakings furnished to the court in order to commence enforcement proceedings in other jurisdictions.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Risk of oppression
- Multiplicity of suits
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 558
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of Mareva injunctions
- Disclosure of assets
- Release from undertakings
- Reduction of enjoined quantum
9. Cause of Actions
- Deceit
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitachi Leasing (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Vincent Ambrose and another | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 762 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions to grant a post-judgment Mareva injunction. |
| Bahtera Offshore (M) Sdn Bhd v Sim Kok Beng and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 365 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of a real risk of dissipation for Mareva injunctions. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 490 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement to be met before the court will grant a Mareva injunction pending appeal. |
| Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 4 WLR 53 | England and Wales | Cited for the purpose of a post-judgment Mareva injunction is to prohibit the dissipation of assets. |
| Meespierson NV v Industrial and Commercial Bank of Vietnam | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a Mareva injunction will not be allowed for ulterior motives. |
| 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 purpose of undertakings is to protect the defendant from the risk of oppression which may arise from a multiplicity of suits. |
| Sumifru Singapore Pte Ltd v Felix Santos Ishizuka and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 904 | Singapore | Cited to argue that undertakings can be removed if it is in the interests of justice to do so. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 555 | Singapore | Cited for the legal test for modification/removal of undertakings in the context of discovery orders. |
| Pacific Rim Investments Pte Ltd v Lam Seng Tiong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 643 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that equitable set-off is only permitted where there are good equitable grounds for directly impeaching the title to the debt which the creditor is seeking to enforce. |
| Sea Trucks Offshore Ltd and others v Roomans, Jacobus Johannes and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 836 | Singapore | Cited for the reason for requiring full disclosure of all assets, instead of partial disclosure of assets sufficient to constitute the enjoined quantum. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 40A r 3(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva injunction
- Post-judgment
- Undertakings
- Judgment Sum
- Enjoined quantum
- Dissipation of assets
- Affidavit of disclosure
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva injunction
- post-judgment
- undertakings
- asset disclosure
- Singapore
- civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mareva Injunctions | 95 |
| Injunctions | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Judgments and Orders | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Debt Recovery