LITT
Try LITT free
GE Vernova Parts & Products GmbH v Anlima Meghnaghat Power Plant Ltd and another [2026] SGHC 21
In GE Vernova Parts & Products GmbH v Anlima Meghnaghat Power Plant Ltd and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions — Interlocutory injunction.
Alphard Maritime Ltd v Samson Maritime Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 154
In Alphard Maritime Ltd v Samson Maritime Ltd [2025] SGHC 154, the High Court set aside freezing orders and injunctions, ruling that the applicant failed to prove a real risk of asset dissipation or the 'urgency' required under s 12A(4) of the International Arbitration Act.
MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94
In MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions — Interlocutory injunction, Employment Law — Contract of service.
Xingang Investment Pte Ltd and another v Lai Jianling [2024] SGHC 93
A mandatory injunction to enforce a power of attorney for the sale of property should not be granted before the claimant has obtained judgment on the underlying debt.
Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd v Church of St Teresa [2024] SGHC 5
In Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd v Church of St Teresa, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Performance bond, Injunctions — Unconscionability.
Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29
The Singapore High Court dismissed Shopee's application for an interim injunction against a former employee joining ByteDance, ruling that the employer failed to provide specific evidence of irreparable harm or a serious question to be tried regarding the non-competition clause.
Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani [2008] SGHC 7
In Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions.
NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 64
The court will not grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction where the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a need for urgent intervention and has bypassed the agreed dispute resolution process.
Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 74
A court will not generally restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition based on an undisputed debt, even if the debtor has a cross-claim, if the debtor has agreed to look to specific security (like an escrow account) for such claims and that security is sufficient.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and Another [2006] SGHC 105
The High Court dismissed a contempt application against Clyde & Co and Mr. Pilkington, ruling that the first defendant failed to prove misuse of information. The court clarified that solicitors are not automatically liable as 'officers' under the Rules of Court for their clients' breaches.
Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Niklex Supply Co) v Lek Benedict and Others [2004] SGHC 84
The court discharged interim injunctions and mandatory orders because the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts and the orders were used as a weapon of oppression.
Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd v Chin Bay Ching [2004] SGHC 262
The court granted a mandatory injunction to retract defamatory letters because the risk of injustice to the plaintiff in withholding the injunction outweighed the risk to the defendant in granting it, and the defendant lacked a legitimate interest to protect.
Royal Global Exports Pte Ltd and Others v Good Stream Co Ltd and Another [2004] SGHC 174
A Mareva injunction should not be used to prevent a defendant from using assets to satisfy bona fide debts incurred in the ordinary course of business, as the court should not rewrite insolvency law or grant plaintiffs a preference they do not otherwise have.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others [2004] SGHC 165
The court held that it has jurisdiction to order cross-examination of a defendant on a Mareva disclosure affidavit if it is just and convenient to do so, particularly where the disclosure is incomplete or inadequate.
UCO Bank v Golden View Maritime Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 271
A Mareva injunction will not be granted where there is no objective evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets, and the sale of a vessel by a one-ship company in the ordinary course of business does not constitute such evidence.
Arubugam Suppiah v Curt Evert Borgensten [2001] SGHC 199
The court held that there was solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant, justifying the continuation of a Mareva injunction, based on the defendant's lack of probity, repeated failure to comply with court orders, and questionable financial transactio
Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd v SNC Passion [2001] SGHC 141
The court discharged an injunction restraining a call on an on-demand performance bond because there was no evidence of fraud or unconscionability, and the Plaintiffs had failed to make full and frank disclosure in their ex parte application.
Pengrui Leasing (Tianjin) Co Ltd v Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 319
In Pengrui Leasing (Tianjin) Co Ltd v Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions — Application.
Neptune Capital Group Ltd and others v Sunmax Global Capital Fund 1 Pte Ltd and another [2016] SGHC 148
In Neptune Capital Group Ltd and others v Sunmax Global Capital Fund 1 Pte Ltd and another, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions — Cross-undertaking in damages, Damages — Measure of damages.
AYK and another v AYM [2015] SGHC 329
In AYK and another v AYM, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions — Mareva injunction.
Annus, Kristin v Annus, Jekaterina and others [2023] SGHC 110
In Annus, Kristin v Annus, Jekaterina and others, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Injunctions — Interim injunction.
Pengrui Leasing (Tianjin) Co Ltd v Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 80
In Pengrui Leasing (Tianjin) Co Ltd v Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Arbitration — Interlocutory order or direction, Injunctions — Mareva injunction.