Allied Marine Services Ltd v LMJ International Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 28 October 2005 |
| Date | 28 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | Suit No 672 of 2005 (Summons in |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Tan Lee Meng J
Suit No 672 of 2005 (Summons in Chambers No 4873 of 2005)
High Court
Civil Procedure–Mareva injunctions–Whether to grant injunction where third parties may thereby be adversely affected–Whether offer of indemnity to third parties adversely affected sufficient justification for granting injunction
Following arbitration proceedings in London regarding a dispute over a charterparty between the plaintiff/applicant (“AMS”) and the defendant/respondent (“LMJ”), an award in favour of AMS was made. AMS was granted leave to enforce the award by the English High Court. As the award remained unsatisfied, AMS sought to enforce its rights under the award and the English judgment in Singapore.
AMS, relying on information that a cargo of iron ore belonging to LMJ was on board a vessel (“the Alitis”), which was bunkering in Singapore before proceeding on the next stage of her voyage, applied for a Mareva injunction with respect to the said cargo. LMJ had no business presence in Singapore. Furthermore, AMS offered to furnish an indemnity of $10,000 to third parties adversely affected by the granting of the injunction.
Held, dismissing the application:
(1) When third parties were involved in the granting of an injunction, the court had to consider the effect of such an injunction on their rights. Where the granting of the injunction would substantially interfere with the third party's business, the rights of the third party had to always prevail over the desire of the plaintiff to secure the ultimate recovery of debts or damages with which the third party was in no way concerned: at [5].
(2) Delay and inconvenience would be suffered by innocent third parties like the owner of the Alitis and other cargo owners if the injunction sought was granted: at [6] and [7].
(3) Besides the fact that the indemnity amount offered by AMS was unacceptably low, the furnishing of an indemnity could not, in and of itself, justify the inconvenience and uncertainties faced by the third parties in the granting of the injunction: at [8].
(4) A plaintiff could not possibly be entitled to obtain the advantage of an injunctive order for himself at the expense of the business rights of an innocent third party merely by proffering the latter an indemnity in whatever format: at [8].
Clipper Maritime Co Ltd of Monrovia v Mineralimportexport (The Marie Leonhardt)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others
...then the court may regard that as a strong reason for refusing Mareva relief: see Allied Marine Services Ltd v LMJ International Ltd [2006] 1 SLR(R) 261 at [5] per Tan Lee Meng J. This analysis is simply part of the court’s assessment of the justice and convenience of the overall outcome th......
-
Arbitration
...of the third party as well as those of the successful party in the arbitration. In Allied Marine Services Ltd v LMJ International Ltd[2006] 1 SLR 261, the plaintiff, who had obtained an arbitral award in London, had registered it as an English judgment. The defendant, an Indian company, was......