Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port: Striking Out Defence for Mareva Injunction Breach
In Orexim Trading Limited v Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited, the High Court of Singapore addressed Orexim's application to strike out the defence of Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited for breaching a Mareva injunction by disposing of two vessels, Bon Chem and Bon Vent. Orexim, a judgment creditor of Mahavir Port, sought to set aside the transfers of the vessels. The court, presided over by Justice Kwek Mean Luck, ordered Zen to restore the vessels or their equivalent value to its asset pool within 14 days, failing which its defence would be struck out. The court also granted an injunction restraining Zen from disposing of the restored assets.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application granted; Zen Shipping ordered to restore assets or face striking out of its defence.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Orexim Trading sought to strike out Zen Shipping's defence for breaching a Mareva injunction by disposing of vessels. The court ordered Zen to restore assets or face defence strikeout.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orexim Trading Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application granted | Won | |
| Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Singmalloyd Marine (S) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Order to restore assets or face defence strikeout | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hui Choon Wai | Wee Swee Teow LLP |
| Luke Chew | Wee Swee Teow LLP |
| Yuen Zi Gui | Oon & Bazul LLP |
4. Facts
- Orexim obtained a Mareva injunction against Zen and other defendants.
- Zen disposed of the Bon Chem and Bon Vent vessels without seeking to vary or discharge the injunction.
- Zen was found guilty of contempt of court for disposing of the Bon Chem.
- Zen did not comply with the sentences imposed for contempt of court.
- Zen claimed the disposal of Bon Chem was necessary to repay Yes Bank.
- Zen claimed the transfer of Bon Vent was temporary for operational employment.
- Zen cited USOFAC sanctions as a reason for inability to restore assets.
5. Formal Citations
- Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 443 of 2020, Summons No 1325 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 190
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Orexim obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendants. | |
| Cause papers in the Suit served on Zen. | |
| Zen entered into an agreement to sell the Bon Chem. | |
| Zen completed the sale of the Bon Chem. | |
| Justice Hoo Sheau Peng found Zen and four of Zen’s officers guilty of contempt. | |
| Registered ownership of the Bon Vent changed from Zen to Anajaneya Shipping Inc. | |
| Orexim’s solicitors were informed that the registered ownership of the Bon Vent had changed. | |
| Orexim's solicitors requested information from Zen's solicitors regarding the Bon Vent. | |
| Zen’s solicitors confirmed the change of ownership of Bon Vent. | |
| Zen was sanctioned by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control. | |
| Judgment delivered by Kwek Mean Luck J. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court found that Zen breached the Mareva injunction by disposing of the vessels without seeking a variation or discharge of the injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Disposal of assets
- Failure to seek variation or discharge of injunction
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 564
- [2010] 4 SLR 801
- Striking Out Defence
- Outcome: The court held that Zen's conduct demonstrated a total disregard of court orders, justifying a striking out order unless Zen complied with the restoration orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Contumelious conduct
- Disregard of court orders
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1
- [2015] 3 SLR 403
- [2013] 3 SLR 1179
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to restore assets or their equivalent value
- Striking out of defence
- Injunction restraining disposal of restored assets
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Mareva Injunction
- Contempt of Court
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suntech Power Investment Pte Ltd v Power Solar System Co Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 564 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties in breach of a Mareva injunction must restore assets to the asset pool. |
| Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties in breach of a Mareva injunction must restore assets to the asset pool. |
| Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a striking out order may be justified where a party's conduct demonstrates total disregard of court orders. |
| Ramindo Sukses Perkasa Pte Ltd v Sim Kwang Oo | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 403 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principles elucidated in Pendleton Lane were of universal application. |
| Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in exceptional circumstances, an action may be struck out even where there might still be a reasonable prospect of a fair trial. |
| DNG FZE v Paypal Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 65 | Singapore | Cited to show that an unless order should not be made unless there has been “a trend of non-compliance by the defaulting party”. |
| Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff and another v Arjan Bhisham Chotrani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an unless order is an order of last resort. |
| Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 WLR 1666 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an unless order is an order of last resort. |
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
- Restoration order
- Striking out order
- Contempt of court
- USOFAC sanctions
- Asset pool
- Vessels
- Bon Chem
- Bon Vent
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva injunction
- striking out
- shipping
- vessel
- contempt of court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Mareva Injunction | 95 |
| Injunctions | 90 |
| Contempt of Court | 70 |
| Civil Litigation | 60 |
| Civil Practice | 60 |
| Litigation | 50 |
| Commercial Disputes | 40 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 30 |
| Duty of Candour | 30 |
| Illegality and public policy | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Shipping Law