Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 16
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-01-21
- Judges: Tan Siong Thye SJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Forbes Monaco APAC
- Defendant/Respondent: Kawajiri Seiji
- Legal Areas: Abuse of Process — Collateral purpose
- Statutes Referenced: Business Names Registration Act, Business Names Registration Act 2014, International Business Companies Act, Partnership Act, Partnership Act 1890
- Cases Cited: [2008] SGHC 26, [2020] SGHC 205, [2026] SGHC 16
- Judgment Length: 38 pages, 10,829 words
Summary
This case involved an abuse of process claim brought by Forbes Monaco APAC against Kawajiri Seiji. Forbes Monaco APAC, represented by David Max Pierre Mezhrahid, alleged that Kawajiri Seiji had improperly removed Forbes Monaco APAC as a founder of a company called Forbes Private Bank Monaco SA (FPBM), thereby extinguishing a €93 million receivable owed to Forbes Monaco APAC. The High Court of Singapore ultimately found that Forbes Monaco APAC's claims were entirely without merit and that David had dishonestly abused the court's process. The court set aside the freezing order it had previously granted against Kawajiri Seiji's assets and ordered personal costs against David.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
On 10 March 2025, David Max Pierre Mezhrahid registered "Forbes Monaco APAC" (the claimant) with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) pursuant to the Business Names Registration Act 2014. Kawajiri Seiji was registered as a partner alongside David.
David then caused the claimant to take ex parte legal action against Kawajiri Seiji on 11 September 2025, seeking among other things a freezing order over Kawajiri's assets. David claimed that Forbes Monaco APAC referred to a Monaco société civile particulière called "Forbes Monaco" (Forbes Monaco SCP) and that he had used the name "Forbes Monaco APAC" as "Forbes Monaco" was no longer available. David admitted that Kawajiri was unaware of and did not consent to the registration of "Forbes Monaco APAC" with Kawajiri as a partner.
According to David's statement of claim and affidavit, the claimant was recorded as a founder of a company called Forbes Private Bank Monaco SA (FPBM), which had a paid-up capital of €93 million. David alleged that on or around 23 December 2020, the founders' register of FPBM was unilaterally altered to remove the claimant, thereby extinguishing the €93 million receivable owed to the claimant. David claimed that Kawajiri was responsible for this removal and sought the €93 million from him.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether Forbes Monaco APAC and Forbes Monaco SCP were the same entity, as claimed by David.
- Whether the claimant had a good arguable case for the €93 million receivable it claimed was owed by FPBM.
- Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets that justified the freezing order granted against Kawajiri.
- Whether the claimant had breached its duty of full and frank disclosure to the court.
- Whether the claimant had abused the court's process.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court found that the evidence did not support David's claim that Forbes Monaco APAC and Forbes Monaco SCP were the same entity. The court noted that a société civile particulière is a "non-trading company capable of holding assets", and that the claimant had not provided any evidence to show that Forbes Monaco APAC was merely an "administrative recognition of a trading style" for Forbes Monaco SCP.
Regarding the €93 million receivable, the court found that the claimant had no good arguable case. There was no evidence to show that Forbes Monaco SCP was a partnership between David and Kawajiri, or that FPBM was a partnership with Forbes Monaco SCP as a partner or founder. The court also found the claim to be procedurally defective.
On the issue of the risk of dissipation, the court held that the claimant had failed to demonstrate a real risk that Kawajiri would dissipate his assets. The court noted that the claimant's application for a receivership order was made ex parte and without any evidence of post-freezing order circumstances showing an increased risk of dissipation.
The court found that the claimant had breached its duty of full and frank disclosure by, among other things, misleading the court about events unfavourable to its case. The court also held that the claimant had abused the court's process, finding that David had dishonestly used the claimant as his "alter ego" to get back at Kawajiri for a personal vendetta, and had cited fictitious legal authorities in support of the claimant's arguments.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered the freezing order against Kawajiri's assets to be set aside. Additionally, the court ordered personal costs to be paid by David, rather than the claimant, due to his egregious conduct and abuse of the court's process.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons. First, it demonstrates the court's willingness to firmly address and sanction abuses of process, particularly where a litigant has deliberately misled the court and used the judicial system for collateral purposes. The court's strong condemnation of David's conduct serves as an important reminder to litigants that the courts will not tolerate such behavior.
Secondly, the case provides guidance on the requirements for establishing a good arguable case and demonstrating a real risk of asset dissipation to obtain a freezing order. The court's analysis of the evidentiary shortcomings in the claimant's case will be valuable for practitioners seeking to understand the high bar that must be met in such applications.
Finally, the case highlights the importance of a litigant's duty of full and frank disclosure to the court. The court's finding that the claimant had breached this duty underscores the need for parties to be transparent and forthright in their dealings with the court, even when seeking ex parte relief.
Legislation Referenced
- Business Names Registration Act
- Business Names Registration Act 2014
- International Business Companies Act
- Partnership Act
- Partnership Act 1890
Cases Cited
- [2008] SGHC 26
- [2020] SGHC 205
- [2026] SGHC 16
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHC 16 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.