Virgin Mobile (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Virgin Store (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly known as Optimatum Pte Ltd)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 14 August 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 181
• Date: 14 August 2002
• Subject Matter: Risk of dissipation of assets,Civil Procedure,Application for interim mareva injunction,Injunctions,Whether any basis for grant of application
• Docket Number: Suit No 733 of 2002 (Summons in
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Lawrence Quahe (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Thio Ying Ying, Lim Siew Khim and Kelvin Lee Ming Hui (Kelvin Chia Partnership)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. This was an application by the plaintiffs for an interim mareva injunction against the defendants. The plaintiffs are licensees of the "Virgin Mobile" mark, the "Virgin" signature, and the "Virgin Mobile" logo. They are the suppliers of mobile telephones, accessories and mobile airtime services. The parties have referred to these collectively as "VMS Products". The defendants are the franchisees of the business name "Virgin Store" in Singapore, and were obliged by various agreements to operate what the parties describe as "life-style concept stores". Generally, it means that the defendant will operate stores selling Virgin Mobile products such as the VMS Products, as well as running a caf and providing other ancillary services to its customers. The agreement in dispute presently is the Authorised Retailer Agreement which the defendants signed with the plaintiffs.

2. By the terms of the said agreement, the plaintiffs would supply mobile telephones to the defendants for retail sale by them (the defendants). The defendants were obliged to submit regular six-monthly rolling forecasts of sales. The plaintiffs alleged that in breach of the agreement, the defendants had not done so. More importantly, the plaintiffs aver that the defendants had not paid the plaintiffs' invoices since December 2001. The amount outstanding is $2,746,399.64. The defendants deny that they were in breach of agreement and say that they have a counter-claim based on misrepresentation and estoppel. The facts and circumstances relating to the breach and counter-claim are not straightforward. However, it is not necessary to deal with them in this application save on the point as to whether the claims are spurious. That point cannot be determined until full arguments are heard.

3. When the application was first heard before me, it was by way of an ex parte application, but it was served on the defendants' solicitors who attended the hearing. The ground advanced at that time by Mrs. Thio on behalf of the plaintiffs was that the amount owing cannot be disputed because they are money subject to a trust created by contract, and that unless restrained, the defendants may dissipate the money in their bank accounts. However, I could see nothing in the affidavits of Ross Anthony Cormack, Lim Teck Liang and Cheong Aik Hock, filed in support of the mareva application that indicates what the danger of dissipation was, or why an urgent order ought to...