[2007] 1 SLR(R) 629 - Singapore Law

632 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [2007] 1 SLR(R)
was a precondition for the exercise of the power under s 4(10) of the CLA, Swift-
Fortune’s argument that the court had no power to grant the Mareva injunction
in this instance because it was, in substance, a final injunction, in that it would
be the only relief that it would be seeking from the court, could not be accepted:
at [89].
[Observation: As this was not an appeal against the decision of Ang J in Front
Carriers, it would not be prudent for this court to say anything that may be
interpreted as either approving or disapproving its amplification or extension of
the scope of s 4(10) of the CLA by applying it to foreign arbitrations where the
plaintiff had a recognisable cause of action under Singapore law and the court
had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Nonetheless, given the differences
in the legal framework in Singapore and in England relating to the power of the
court to grant interim measures to assist foreign court and foreign arbitral
proceedings, and bearing in mind that the law as it developed in England was
very different from the way the law had been developed in Singapore, there were
arguments for and against construing s 4(10) to restrict or broaden the type of
cases in which the court could or could not grant Mareva interlocutory relief to
assist foreign court proceedings or foreign arbitral proceedings and in
ascertaining whether s 4(10) of the CLA could have a broader area of application
than s 12(7) of the IAA: at [92] and [93].]
Case(s) referred to
Art Trend Ltd v Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd [1981–1982] SLR(R) 633; [1982–1983]
SLR 362 (refd)
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping
Corporation Ltd [1981] AC 909 (refd)
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Betty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334
(folld)
Coop International Pte Ltd v Ebel SA [1998] 1 SLR(R) 615; [1998] 3 SLR 670
(refd)
Econ Corp International Ltd v Ballast-Nedam International BV [2003] 2 SLR(R)
15; [2003] 2 SLR 15 (refd)
Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp [2006] 3 SLR(R) 854;
[2006] 3 SLR 854 (distd)
Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 (refd)
Holmes v Bangladesh Biman Corporation [1989] 1 AC 1112 (refd)
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112;
[2006] 1 SLR 112 (folld)
Lady Muriel, The [1995] 2 HKC 320 (distd)
Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 509 (refd)
Meespierson (Bahamas) Limited v Grupo Torras SA (1999–2000) 2 ITELR 29
(refd)
Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284 (refd)
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (refd)
PT Garuda Indonesia v Birgen Air [2002] 1 SLR(R) 401; [2002] 1 SLR 393 (refd)
Rena K, The [1979] QB 377 (refd)