Kristin Annus v Jekaterina Annus: Enforcement of Undertaking as to Damages in Interim Injunction
In Kristin Annus v Jekaterina Annus, the High Court of Singapore considered an application by TA Activity Singapore Private Ltd to enforce an undertaking as to damages given by Kristin Annus in connection with an interim injunction. The injunction was obtained in support of inheritance proceedings taking place in Estonia between Kristin Annus and Jekaterina Annus. The court ordered that the enforcement of the plaintiff’s undertaking be held over until the Estonian proceedings were resolved.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Enforcement of the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages was ordered to be held over until the Estonian proceedings were resolved.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court defers enforcement of Kristin Annus's undertaking as to damages until resolution of Estonian inheritance fraud proceedings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kristin Annus | Plaintiff | Individual | Enforcement of undertaking held over | Neutral | |
| Jekaterina Annus | Defendant | Individual | No specific outcome | Neutral | |
| Ljubov Skurd | Defendant | Individual | No specific outcome | Neutral | |
| TA Activity Singapore Private Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Enforcement of undertaking held over | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff sought an interim injunction in Singapore to support proceedings in Estonia.
- The Estonian proceedings concern alleged fraud in the administration of the deceased's estate.
- The interim injunction restrained the third defendant from dealing with its assets worldwide.
- Plaintiff provided an undertaking to pay damages if the interim injunction caused damage to the third defendant.
- The third defendant claimed losses due to the halting of a share divestment as a result of the injunction.
- Estonian appellate court narrowed the scope of injunctions granted in Estonia.
- The Singapore court allowed a jurisdictional challenge against the main suit and struck it out.
5. Formal Citations
- Annus, Kristin v Annus, Jekaterina and others, Originating Summons 1050 of 2021 (Summons No 4269 of 2022), [2023] SGHC 110
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Estonian proceedings commenced | |
| Plaintiff obtained first Estonian injunction | |
| Third defendant planned to divest shares in Sea Ltd | |
| Plaintiff commenced HC/OS 1050/2021 in Singapore | |
| Interim injunction granted in HC/ORC 5738/2021 | |
| Interim injunction served on third defendant | |
| Divestment halted | |
| Divestment resumed after amendment to interim injunction | |
| Estonian appellate court narrowed scope of first Estonian injunction | |
| Plaintiff obtained second Estonian injunction | |
| Court allowed first and second defendants’ jurisdictional challenge against HC/OS 1050/2021 | |
| Estonian appellate court narrowed scope of second Estonian injunction | |
| Divestment completed | |
| Interim injunction set aside | |
| HC/OS 1050/2021 struck out | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforcement of Undertaking as to Damages
- Outcome: The court ordered that the enforcement of the plaintiff’s undertaking be held over until the Estonian proceedings were resolved.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 4 SLR 1177
- [2016] 2 SLR 737
- [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407
- [2014] 4 SLR 1208
- [1993] 1 WLR 1545
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neptune Capital Group Ltd and others v Sunmax Global Capital Fund 1 Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1177 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the enforcement of an undertaking as to damages, including the court's discretion and the requirement that the injunction was wrongly granted. |
| Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 737 | Singapore | Cited for circumstances that would justify refusal to enforce an undertaking, such as conduct of the defendant, delay, or public interest. |
| Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that losing a claim strongly favors an order for an inquiry as to damages. |
| SH Cogent Logistics Pte Ltd and another v Singapore Agro Agricultural Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1208 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the discharge of an injunction does not necessarily mean it was wrongly obtained. |
| Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society (formerly Portsmouth Building Society) v Ricketts | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 1545 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the question of enforcement of an undertaking as to damages may be best reserved to the trial judge, especially in cases involving fraud. |
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
- Undertaking as to damages
- Interim injunction
- Estonian proceedings
- Divestment
- Fraud
- Inheritance
15.2 Keywords
- injunction
- undertaking as to damages
- Estonia
- fraud
- inheritance
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Injunctions | 90 |
| Interim Injunction | 80 |
| Enforcement of Undertaking | 70 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 60 |
| Damages Assessment | 40 |
| Judgments and Orders | 30 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Injunctions
- Civil Procedure
- Enforcement of Undertakings