1 October 2015
The Bouvier judgment clarifies the rules of the game for those seeking to obtain Mareva injunctions in Singapore, including in support of arbitration, and as such, is of paramount importance. In Yves Charles Edgar Bouvier and Anor v Accent Delight International Ltd and Anor and another appeal  SGCA 45, the Court of Appeal held that an allegation of dishonesty does not obviate the need to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets, which is key to obtaining a Mareva injunction. In doing so, the Court of Appeal effectively tightened the requirements to be met by an applicant before a freezing order can be granted.
- An allegation of dishonesty does not obviate the need to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets.
- A party seeking a Mareva injunction must give notice to the party against whom the injunction is sought, unless giving prior notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction: it is no longer "common practice" to apply for Mareva injunctions ex parte.
- The Court of Appeal will lift the injunction if the injunction had been obtained not out of a genuine fear of dissipation of assets but to oppress the party against whom the injunction was made.