Jonathan John Shipping v Continental Shipping: Mareva Injunction & Asset Dissipation
In [2025] SGHC 34, the High Court of Singapore addressed applications related to a Mareva injunction in the case of Jonathan John Shipping Ltd (Claimant) v Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd (Defendant). The Claimant sought disclosure orders and variation of the Mareva Order, while the Defendant applied to set aside the Mareva Order. The court granted the Claimant's application and dismissed the Defendant's application, finding a good arguable case on the merits and a real risk of asset dissipation by the Defendant. The court ordered costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Claimant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Claimant's application granted; Defendant's application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court grants disclosure orders and upholds Mareva injunction against Continental Shipping due to risk of asset dissipation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan John Shipping Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Application Granted | Won | Chua Chok Wah, Nur Rafizah Binte Mohamed Abdul Gaffoor |
| Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Kwek Choon Lin Winston, Adam Isaac Ho Han Yang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chua Chok Wah | Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP |
| Nur Rafizah Binte Mohamed Abdul Gaffoor | Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP |
| Kwek Choon Lin Winston | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Adam Isaac Ho Han Yang | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Claimant chartered the Vessel to the Defendant until April 2022.
- Parties purportedly agreed to Addendum No 3, extending the Charterparty.
- Claimant sent an e-mail to the Defendant, informing them that the Vessel had been arranged for dry-docking.
- Vessel was delivered in Singapore to the Claimant for dry-docking on 15 October 2022.
- Claimant commenced arbitration proceedings against the Defendant in London.
- Claimant sought a worldwide Mareva injunction prohibiting the disposal of assets by the Defendant.
- Defendant ceased its primary business operations of chartering vessels.
5. Formal Citations
- Jonathan John Shipping Ltd v Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 1152 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 391 and 995 of 2024), [2025] SGHC 34
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Charterparty agreement entered into | |
| Addendum No 3 purportedly agreed to | |
| Claimant informed Defendant of Vessel dry-docking | |
| Vessel delivered in Singapore for dry-docking | |
| Vessel entered dry-dock in Guangzhou, China | |
| Claimant notified Defendant of extensive repair works | |
| Claimant sent e-mail notifying Defendant of Vessel delivery | |
| Claimant sent e-mail notifying Defendant of Vessel delivery | |
| Defendant sought to terminate Charterparty | |
| Arbitration proceedings commenced in London | |
| Claimant filed application for interim relief | |
| Mareva Order granted | |
| Claimant filed application for disclosure orders | |
| Defendant filed application to set aside Mareva Order | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Risk of Dissipation of Assets
- Outcome: The court found sufficient evidence to infer a real risk of dissipation of the Defendant's assets, based on the nature of the assets, cessation of business operations, and unexplained withdrawals.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Systematic and unexplained attrition of assets
- Inability to justify withdrawals
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 558
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 157
- [2023] 1 SLR 1072
- Good Arguable Case on the Merits
- Outcome: The court found that the Claimant had a good arguable case on the merits, as the Defendant could not definitively show a lawful right to terminate the Charterparty.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Lawful right to terminate Charterparty
- Repudiatory breach of Charterparty
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 558
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found no abuse of process that warranted setting aside the Mareva Order, as the Claimant acted swiftly upon receiving evidence of a real risk of dissipation and did not breach its duty of full and frank disclosure.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inexplicable delay in bringing application
- Failure to make full and frank disclosure
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 558
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 365
- Power to Grant Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that it had the power to grant the Mareva Order, as the arbitral tribunal seated in London had no power to grant interim injunctive relief.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Worldwide Mareva Injunction
- Disclosure Orders
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Wrongful Termination of Charterparty
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Shipping
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 principles governing the grant of Mareva injunctions, specifically the requirements of a good arguable case and a real risk of asset dissipation. |
| Guan Chong Cocoa Manufacturer Sdn Bhd v Pratiwi Shipping SA | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 157 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of 'solid evidence' to demonstrate the risk of dissipation in Mareva injunction applications. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited regarding objective evidence of mutual agreement on dry-docking arrangements and factors relevant to assessing the risk of dissipation. |
| Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for the admissibility of affidavits with hearsay evidence in interlocutory proceedings and the minimum threshold of reliability required for affidavit evidence. |
| Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd v Pengrui Leasing (Tianjin) Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 1072 | Singapore | Cited for the ultimate question in assessing the risk of dissipation: whether there are circumstances suggesting that the defendant can and will likely frustrate the judgment. |
| Sumifru Singapore Pte Ltd v Felix Santos Ishizuka and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 904 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must consider if it is in the interests of justice to grant a variation order and may do so if reasonable doubts were raised in relation to the defendant’s transactions. |
| Bahtera Offshore (M) Sdn Bhd v Sim Kok Beng and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 365 | Singapore | Cited for the claimant's duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts in an application without notice and the court's discretion in deciding whether to discharge a Mareva injunction for non-disclosure. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited for the claimant's duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts in an application without notice. |
| Multi-Code Electronics Industries (M) Bhd and another v Toh Chun Toh Gordon and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1000 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court considers when exercising its discretion whether to discharge a Mareva injunction for non-disclosure. |
| Z Ltd v A | N/A | Yes | [1982] 1 All ER 556 | England and Wales | Cited for the inference that there is a real risk that the defendant may dissipate his assets where the defendant refuses to provide any disclosure of his assets at all. |
| Meespierson NV v Industrial and Commercial Bank of Vietnam | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited regarding abuse of process due to delay in bringing the application. |
| Madoff Securities International Ltd and another v Raven and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2011] EWHC 3102 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited regarding the length of the delay and any explanations for such delay should be considered against all the circumstances of the case. |
| Thevarajah v Riordan and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2015] EWHC 1949 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited regarding the court may grant the order if it finds that “reasonable doubts were raised” in relation to the defendant’s transactions, and the variations sought are reasonably necessary for the claimant’s policing of the Mareva injunction |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva Injunction
- Charterparty
- Addendum
- Dry-docking
- Dissipation of Assets
- Arbitration
- Termination
- Disclosure Order
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva Injunction
- Shipping
- Arbitration
- Asset Dissipation
- Charterparty
- Singapore
- Injunction
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Shipping Law
- Injunctions
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Mareva Injunctions
- Arbitration Law