Mareva Injunction in Singapore Arbitration & Seizure of Foreign Assets
Theme: Legal Framework, Module: Arbitration & Courts
Author: Ramasubramanian
Published Date: 21 Feb 2026
ONE of the hazards of litigation/ arbitration which a plaintiff has to accept, is the risk of the defendant surreptitiously disposing of his assets so as to evade any judgment that may be obtained against him.
Until recently there was little that the plaintiff could do to minimise the risk, for it was generally accepted that until judgment, the assets of the defendant were inviolable. On the 22nd of May 1975, the English Court of Appeal in Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis departed from previous practice and granted an ex-parte interlocutory injunction to restrain non-resident defendants from removing any of their assets located within the #jurisdiction. This form of injunction is now commonly referred to as the Mareva injunction.
In the local context, the existence of a Mareva jurisdiction has been confirmed both in Malaysia and #Singapore. In Zainal Abidin v. Century Hotel Sdn. Bhd., the Federal Court of #Malaysia confirmed the existence of the jurisdiction, although the High Court in Malaya had earlier denied that it had jurisdiction.
In #Singapore it would appear that the existence of the Mareva jurisdiction had been recognised for some time by the High Court, although it was only in Art Trend Ltd. v. Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd., that a written judgment was delivered by the High Court confirming the existence of the jurisdiction.
Three aspects of the Mareva injunction. These are:
(i) Whether the injunctive relief is available where there is a danger that the defendant may dispose of his assets within jurisdiction but without any evidence of any intention to transfer those assets outside the jurisdiction;
(ii) The Mareva injunction and third party rights; and
(iii) The Mareva injunction and seizure of assets.
Mareva Injunctions and Seizure Of Assets
Where the assets of the defendant are held by innocent third parties, such as banks, the plaintiff will be protected as soon as the order is notified to the third party concerned. With the threat of contempt proceedings, it is unlikely that any such third party would knowingly disobey the #injunction. However, where the assets in question are easily disposable, such as antiques and are in the defendant’s hands, the position is not quite so simple.
The Mareva injunction would only have been granted in the first place on the basis that there was a likelihood of dissipation to thwart any judgment of the court. Given such a scenario, there may be cases where the defendant will, despite the service of the order and the threat of contempt proceedings, attempt to dispose of the asset in question. In such cases it may well be desirable to order the delivery up of the asset concerned.
This latest development in the scope of the Mareva injunction is one which will help ensure that the order of the court is not summarily evaded by an uncaring defendant. So long as the guidelines laid down by the court are followed, little injustice is likely to result. In fact, as mentioned earlier, pre-trial seizure of assets is by no means a new concept in Singapore, for under Part III of the Debtors Act, an order for attachment takes effect by seizure.
Given that the courts have the power to grant such ancillary orders as are just and convenient to ensure that the Mareva injunction is effective, it is perhaps a little difficult to see why the power to order a delivery up should be confined as suggested in the guidelines, to cases where the asset in question was acquired by reason of the defendant’s wrongdoing.
The Mareva injunction has thus evolved from a ‘remedy’ available only against foreign defendants in respects of removal of assets outside of jurisdiction into a ‘remedy’ available wherever just and convenient, backed up with powers of discovery and delivery up.
Small wonder then that Lord Denning M.R. labelled the Mareva as one of the most important instances of judicial law reform of recent times.