A Mareva injunction — formally known as a freezing order under the Singapore Rules of Court 2021 — is one of the most powerful pre-trial remedies available in civil litigation. When granted, it restrains a defendant from dissipating or removing assets from Singapore’s jurisdiction, preserving the plaintiff’s ability to enforce any eventual judgment. This guide covers the complete application process before the Singapore High Court.

What Is a Mareva Injunction?

A Mareva injunction is a court order that freezes a defendant’s assets — whether held in Singapore or worldwide — pending the outcome of substantive proceedings. It takes its name from the English case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509. In Singapore, the remedy is now governed by Order 13 of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), and is granted by the General Division of the High Court or the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) for international commercial disputes.

The Three-Part Legal Test

To obtain a Mareva injunction, the applicant must satisfy the Singapore court on three elements established in Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar v Accent Delight International Ltd [2015] SGCA 45 and subsequent decisions:

1. Good Arguable Case

The applicant must demonstrate a “good arguable case” — more than merely arguable, but need not be proven to the balance of probabilities. This means showing that the claim has a reasonable prospect of success, supported by evidence rather than bare assertion.

2. Real Risk of Dissipation

The applicant must demonstrate a “real risk” that the defendant will dissipate or remove assets from Singapore before judgment is satisfied. This is typically the most contested element. Relevant evidence includes:

  • The defendant’s past conduct — previous fraudulent transfers, asset movements immediately preceding litigation, or a history of concealing assets
  • The nature of the assets — liquid or easily transferable assets (cash, shares) are more susceptible to dissipation than fixed Singapore property
  • Lack of connection to Singapore — a foreign defendant with no permanent establishment may be more likely to remove assets
  • Behaviour following discovery of the claim — attempts to transfer assets after learning of the dispute

A mere assertion of dissipation risk is insufficient. Specific, cogent evidence is required — see Guan Chong Cocoa Manufacturer Sdn Bhd v Pratiwi Shipping SA [2003] 1 SLR 157.

3. Balance of Convenience

Even where the first two elements are satisfied, the court retains discretion to refuse the order if the balance of convenience does not favour granting it. Factors include the potential injustice to the defendant (particularly if the freeze would destroy a going-concern business), the adequacy of the applicant’s cross-undertaking in damages, and whether the order would in practice achieve its purpose.

Ex Parte vs On-Notice Applications

Mareva injunctions are almost always applied for ex parte — without notice to the defendant. Prior notice would alert the defendant and enable pre-emptive asset transfers, defeating the purpose of the order.

Ex parte applications impose a heightened duty on the applicant: the duty of full and frank disclosure. The applicant must disclose all material facts — including those adverse to its own case. Failure to do so is an independent ground for discharge of the injunction, even where the underlying claim is meritorious. The leading Singapore case is Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901.

Documents Required for the Application

Originating Claim or Summons

The Mareva application is ordinarily brought as an interlocutory application within existing or concurrent proceedings. Under ROC 2021, this is filed by way of an Originating Claim (OC) with a Statement of Claim, or within ongoing proceedings by Summons.

Supporting Affidavit

The supporting affidavit is the centrepiece of the application. It must:

  • Clearly identify the applicant and respondent
  • Set out the underlying cause of action in sufficient detail to establish the good arguable case
  • Disclose all material facts, including those adverse to the applicant
  • Exhibit all relevant documents — contracts, correspondence, bank records, financial statements
  • Identify the specific assets to be frozen and their approximate value
  • Provide specific evidence of the risk of dissipation
  • Confirm the applicant’s cross-undertaking in damages and the assets available to satisfy it

Draft Order

The applicant must prepare and submit a draft order for the court’s consideration. The standard Mareva order template (published on the Singapore Courts website) covers the assets restrained, permitted exceptions for living expenses and ordinary business costs, and ancillary discovery obligations.

Cross-Undertaking in Damages

The applicant must undertake to compensate the respondent for any loss caused by the injunction, if the court later finds the order should not have been granted. If the applicant lacks sufficient assets to honour this undertaking, the court may require fortification — typically a security deposit or bank guarantee.

The Application Hearing

Ex parte Mareva applications are heard by a High Court Judge in chambers, typically on an urgent basis. The applicant’s counsel presents the application, leading the court through the affidavit evidence. Hearing duration ranges from 30 minutes to several hours depending on complexity.

If the court is satisfied, it will make the order immediately. The applicant then arranges personal service of the sealed order (together with the supporting affidavit and all exhibits) on the respondent as soon as practicable — typically within hours of the order being made. Service must be effected before the respondent can be held in contempt for breach.

Worldwide Mareva Orders

Singapore courts have jurisdiction to grant Mareva orders extending to assets worldwide. A worldwide order will be granted where Singapore assets alone are insufficient to cover the claim, or where the defendant has assets in multiple jurisdictions. See Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA [2007] 1 SLR(R) 629. Enforcing a worldwide Mareva order abroad typically requires separate proceedings in each foreign jurisdiction to recognise the Singapore order, though the respondent remains personally bound wherever they are located.

Ancillary Discovery Orders

A Mareva injunction may be accompanied by an ancillary disclosure order requiring the respondent to provide, within a specified time, a full list of their assets — including all bank accounts, real property, shares, and other significant assets within and outside Singapore. Third parties — particularly banks — may also be served with the Mareva order and are thereby obliged not to permit dealings with the respondent’s accounts. The standard form Mareva order makes it a contempt of court for any third party with notice of the order to assist in the dissipation of restrained assets.

The Return Date Hearing

An ex parte order is interim. The court will fix a return date — typically one to three weeks after the initial order — at which the respondent may appear and be heard. At the return date, the court considers whether to continue, vary, or discharge the injunction. If the respondent wishes to challenge the order before the return date, it may apply on an expedited basis. The court may set aside the order if the applicant failed the duty of full and frank disclosure, or if the evidence on the merits or dissipation risk is insufficient when viewed in the round.

Variation and Discharge

Even after confirmation at the return date, the respondent may apply to vary the terms — for example, to increase the living expenses allowance, permit a specific transaction, or release funds to meet legal costs. The court has wide discretion to vary the order to avoid oppression, particularly where a legitimate business would be disproportionately affected.

Practical Considerations

  • Act quickly: Once you suspect dissipation is imminent, instruct counsel immediately. Delay may result in assets being transferred before the order can be obtained
  • Brief counsel fully: The duty of full and frank disclosure requires your lawyers to know all material facts — withholding adverse information risks the entire order being discharged
  • Identify assets precisely: Courts are reluctant to grant vague orders. Identify specific bank accounts and property in the affidavit where possible
  • Resource the undertaking: Ensure you have assets to back the cross-undertaking — courts scrutinise this carefully for large claims
  • Consider costs exposure: If the order is ultimately discharged, the applicant may be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs and losses under the cross-undertaking

How Raffles Corporate Services Can Help

The conduct of Mareva injunction proceedings requires advocacy before the Singapore High Court by a Singapore-qualified advocate and solicitor. Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the surrounding corporate support work — including ACRA company searches, document tracing, and coordination with your litigation counsel. For corporate and compliance queries, contact us at [email protected] or call, SMS, or WhatsApp +65 8501 7133.

— The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services