Imagine winning your court case only to discover the defendant has quietly moved every dollar offshore, leaving you with a judgment worth nothing more than the paper it is printed on. This is the nightmare the Mareva injunction exists to prevent. Often called a “freezing order”, it is one of the most powerful weapons in Singapore civil litigation – a court order that stops a defendant from dealing with or dissipating their assets while a case is fought, so that any eventual judgment can actually be satisfied.
For companies caught up in commercial fraud, breach of contract, or director misconduct, understanding the Mareva injunction can be the difference between recovering a debt and writing it off. This guide explains, in plain English, what a Mareva injunction is in Singapore, the legal basis for it, who can apply, how the process works, what it costs, and what happens once the order is granted. It is written for company directors and business owners, not lawyers – but because this is a serious court remedy, you should always engage a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor to act.
1. What a Mareva injunction is
A Mareva injunction is a court order that restrains a defendant from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of their assets, up to a specified amount, pending the outcome of proceedings. It does not give the claimant any ownership of or security over the frozen assets – it is not a form of attachment. Its sole purpose is to preserve the status quo so that a future judgment is not rendered worthless by the deliberate dissipation of assets.
The order can be domestic, freezing only assets located within Singapore, or worldwide, freezing the defendant’s assets wherever they are in the world. A worldwide order is exceptional and carries additional safeguards to protect third parties and foreign courts. Because it bites hard and is usually sought urgently and without notice to the defendant, the Mareva injunction is sometimes described as one of the law’s “nuclear weapons”.
2. Legal basis
The Singapore court’s power to grant a Mareva injunction flows from its power to grant injunctions where it is just or convenient to do so – found in section 4(10) of the Civil Law Act 1909 – together with the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of its own processes. The procedure for applying is governed by the Rules of Court 2021, under which interlocutory injunctions, including freezing and search orders, are dealt with.
Singapore’s courts have developed a substantial body of case law refining when a freezing order – especially a worldwide one – will be granted, and how it interacts with the requirement that there be a substantive cause of action over which the Singapore court has jurisdiction. The underlying legislation can be read on Singapore Statutes Online, and plain-English overviews of Singapore court procedure are available at justfollowlaw.com.
3. Who can apply and what must be shown
Any claimant with a cause of action – typically a creditor, a company pursuing a defaulting counterparty, or a company suing a director or third party for misappropriated funds – can apply for a Mareva injunction. It is frequently used in fraud and asset-tracing cases, and alongside claims for breach of fiduciary duty by directors. In insolvency it can support recovery through misfeasance claims against directors, and it is often paired with steps to enforce against assets such as charging a defendant’s shares.
To obtain the order, the applicant must satisfy the court of two central requirements:
- A good arguable case. The claimant must show a good arguable case on the substantive claim – a case that is more than merely barely capable of argument, though it need not be shown to be likely to succeed at this stage.
- A real risk of dissipation. The claimant must show, by solid evidence, a real risk that the defendant will dissipate or dispose of assets to frustrate any judgment. Mere suspicion, or the fact that a defendant is foreign, is not enough; there must be concrete evidence pointing to a genuine risk.
Because a Mareva injunction is almost always sought urgently and ex parte (without notice to the defendant), the applicant is also under a strict duty of full and frank disclosure – it must tell the court everything material, including matters that help the defendant. A failure to make full and frank disclosure can cause the order to be discharged. The applicant must also give an undertaking as to damages, promising to compensate the defendant (and affected third parties, such as banks) if the injunction later proves to have been wrongly obtained.
4. The step-by-step process
Step 1: Gather evidence and instruct solicitors
Speed and evidence are everything. Your solicitors will assemble affidavit evidence establishing the good arguable case and, critically, the evidence of a real risk of dissipation – for example, assets being moved, accounts emptied, or a pattern of concealment.
Step 2: Apply, usually without notice
The application is made to the High Court, generally on an urgent, without-notice basis so the defendant cannot pre-empt it by moving assets. The applicant files the supporting affidavit, the undertaking as to damages, and a draft order.
Step 3: The court hears the application
The court weighs the two requirements and the adequacy of disclosure. If satisfied, it grants the order, often for a short period until a further hearing at which the defendant can be heard.
Step 4: Serve the order
The order is served on the defendant and, importantly, on third parties such as banks holding the defendant’s accounts. Once notified, a bank that knowingly allows the frozen funds to be dealt with risks contempt of court – which is what gives the order its practical bite.
Step 5: The return date and challenge
At the inter partes hearing, the defendant can apply to discharge or vary the order – for example, arguing there is no real risk of dissipation, or that disclosure was inadequate. The court may continue, vary or discharge the injunction.
5. Documents required
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Originating application / summons | Commences the application for the injunction. |
| Supporting affidavit | Sets out the good arguable case and the evidence of a real risk of dissipation. |
| Exhibits (contracts, bank records, correspondence) | Documentary proof supporting the claim and the risk. |
| Undertaking as to damages | The applicant’s promise to compensate for loss if the order was wrongly obtained. |
| Draft freezing order | The precise terms sought, including the frozen sum and any living/legal expense carve-outs. |
| Skeletal submissions | The legal argument presented to the judge. |
6. Timeline and indicative costs
| Stage | Indicative timing |
|---|---|
| Evidence-gathering and drafting | Days to a couple of weeks, depending on urgency |
| Urgent without-notice hearing | Can be heard within days, or same-day in a genuine emergency |
| Service on defendant and banks | Immediately after the order is granted |
| Inter partes return hearing | Typically within days to a few weeks of the initial order |
Costs vary widely with complexity and urgency. Because these applications are affidavit-heavy, fast-moving and high-stakes, they are among the more expensive interlocutory steps in litigation. The applicant should also be prepared to back its undertaking as to damages, which in a large case can be significant. Court fees are set out on the Singapore Courts website, but legal fees will be the main cost.
7. What happens after the order is granted
Once frozen, the defendant cannot deal with the covered assets beyond the terms of the order – though a well-drafted order allows the defendant reasonable living expenses and legitimate legal costs, and permits dealings in the ordinary course of business where appropriate. The defendant is usually required to disclose their assets on affidavit, which is often the most valuable practical feature of the order because it reveals where the money is.
The injunction is a holding measure, not a final result. The underlying claim still has to be won. If the claimant ultimately succeeds, the preserved assets are available to satisfy the judgment; if the claimant loses, the order is discharged and the undertaking as to damages may be called upon. Where the defendant is a company that is also insolvent, a freezing order may operate alongside insolvency processes and the rules on setting aside voidable transactions.
8. Frequently asked questions
Does a Mareva injunction give me security over the frozen assets?
No. It does not create any charge or priority. It simply prevents dissipation. If the defendant becomes insolvent, you rank as an ordinary creditor unless you have separate security.
Can it freeze assets outside Singapore?
Yes, through a worldwide Mareva injunction, but the threshold is higher and additional safeguards apply to protect third parties and respect foreign courts.
What if I obtained the order but lose the case?
The order will be discharged, and the defendant (and affected third parties) may claim compensation under your undertaking as to damages. This is why the remedy should not be pursued lightly.
Can the defendant get the order lifted?
Yes. At the inter partes hearing the defendant can seek to discharge or vary it – commonly by showing there is no real risk of dissipation, or that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure.
How quickly can I get one?
In a genuine emergency, an application can be heard within days, and sometimes on the same day. But the evidence must be ready, so preparation cannot be rushed.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork – ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
📧 Email: [email protected]
📱 Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
— The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services