I OVERVIEW

Singapore is a leading financial capital of the world. As a global wealth management centre, international funds flow through the jurisdiction on a daily basis.

Financial institutions have, in recent times, faced increasingly stricter and more rigorous compliance, sanctions, anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing rules and regulations and have had to allocate significant resources to their financial crimes units. Despite steps taken to prevent fraud, fraud litigation is not uncommon in Singapore, and asset tracing and recovery is an important aspect of fraud proceedings.

II LEGAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES

i Civil and criminal remedies

Civil remedies

In Singapore, victims of fraud most commonly seek financial recovery or compensation, or both, through civil remedies. This is because by initiating civil proceedings against the perpetrator of the fraud, the victim (as the plaintiff in the proceedings) can pursue its claim through a variety of processes before, at and after trial. In comparison, in criminal proceedings (which are generally instituted and controlled by Singapore's prosecutorial office, the Attorney-General's Chambers (the AGC)), the victim would not have any meaningful control over these proceedings.

As against the perpetrator, the common causes of action commenced include:

  1. tort of deceit or Fraudulent misrepresentation;
  2. breach of duty (fiduciary or otherwise);
  3. unjust enrichment; and
  4. conversion

As against the person or persons who assisted the main perpetrator, who may have received or who helped transmit the proceeds of fraud, the common causes of action that are commenced include:

  1. conspiracy;
  2. dishonest assistance; and
  3. knowing receipt.

It should be noted that tracing does not exist as a claim or remedy per se. However, it is a process that is commonly relied on in civil claims involving fraud, particularly where the victim's property has been mixed with other property or funds. Tracing is the process by which the plaintiff identifies the proceeds of his or her property and who they lie with, then justifies his or her claim that the proceeds can be regarded as representing the property (of which he or she has been defrauded).

In Singapore, there is a six-year limitation period on actions founded on a contract or tort.2 However, where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant3 or where the right of action is concealed by the fraud of such a person, the period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or could have with reasonable diligence discovered it.4

Where a victim successfully obtains judgment against the perpetrator, the victim will then need to enforce the judgment (usually for money). A detailed discussion of enforcement proceedings are beyond the scope of this chapter. However, it should be noted that there are likely limitations to successfully enforcing a judgment and recovering monies awarded by the court in a situation where the perpetrator has, by then, dissipated all of his or her own assets or the defrauded assets, or both, or mixed them such that legal title to the property is no longer traceable.

Tort of deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation

In order for a victim to succeed in a claim for tort of deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation, the following must be established:5

  1. a representation of fact made by words or conduct;
  2. the representation must be made with knowledge that it is false;6
  3. the representation must be made with the intention that it should be acted upon by the plaintiff;7
  4. the plaintiff had acted upon the false statement; and
  5. the plaintiff suffered damage in doing so.

To defend against such a claim, a defendant would need to establish that at least one of the above elements cannot be satisfied. It is not a defence for the defendant to say that the plaintiff failed to take steps to verify the truth of the representations that a prudent person would take.8 Contributory negligence is also not a defence.9

The usual damages sought in a claim for tort of deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation are compensatory in nature and will generally be for financial loss flowing from the misrepresentation or misrepresentations. It is also possible to make a claim for exemplary damages 'where the defendant's deceit was calculated to make a profit beyond the damages payable to the plaintiff as compensation'.10

Breach of duty

Where fraud has been committed by an employee or fiduciary, this may amount to a breach of duty. In respect of an employee, whether or not a breach has been committed will be dependent on the terms of the employment contract and the implied duties of an employee at law.

As for a fiduciary, he or she has, amongst many other duties, a strict duty not to misuse trust property and not to make an unauthorised profit by reason of his or her position as a fiduciary.11 In order for a victim to succeed in a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, it would be necessary to first establish that the defendant is a fiduciary. A common defence by a defendant against such a claim would thus be that he or she is not in fact a fiduciary. Recognised categories of fiduciary relationships include that of trustee–beneficiary,12 agent–principal,13 solicitor–client,14 partners15 and directors.16 The Singapore courts have also, in fact-specific instances, imposed fiduciary obligations in respect of other relationships such as employer–employee,17 and collective sales committee to subsidiary proprietors of strata development.18 The categories of fiduciaries are, therefore, not finite, and each claim (unless falling within the generally accepted fiduciary categories) will need to be analysed on its own facts.

A plaintiff may seek the following equitable or proprietary remedies for a breach of fiduciary duty:

  1. rescission of a contract that involves a breach of fiduciary duty;
  2. equitable compensation payable by the fiduciary to the beneficiary;
  3. an account of the ill-gotten profits payable by the fiduciary to the beneficiary;
  4. tracing the title of ill-gotten property that has been transferred from the fiduciary to the beneficiary;
  5. imposing a constructive trust on such a beneficiary; and
  6. injunctions or specific performance – to stop the fiduciary from committing a breach.19

In addition, the Companies Act20 (CA) also prescribes certain directors' duties, and a breach of fiduciary duty can also be a breach of these statutory duties. For example, Section 157(1) CA prescribes that a director shall at all times act honestly and use reasonable diligence in the discharge of the duties of office. A breach of such statutory provisions may result in: (1) liability for any profit made by the officer or damage suffered by the company as a result of the breach; and (2) criminal liability.

Unjust enrichment

Unjust enrichment is another cause of action that can be brought against the perpetrator. It can also be brought against a beneficiary of the fraud who may not be the primary perpetrator. This can be particularly useful in cases where the primary perpetrator no longer has the subject monies in hand and, through tracing, it is discovered that the monies have been handed to other parties.

The following elements21 must be established for unjust enrichment to be made out:

  1. the defendant must have been enriched;
  2. this enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff;
  3. this enrichment was unjust (i.e., the presence of an 'unjust factor', such as a mistake induced by fraud);22 and
  4. the defendant cannot avail himself or herself of any defences.

A common defence relied on is that of change of position. However, this defence is not available to a wrongdoer. This defence is made out if: (1) the recipient of the funds has changed his or her position; (2) the change is bona fide; and (3) it would be inequitable to require the recipient of the funds to make restitution or restitution in full.23 In addition, there must be a causative link between the receipt of the benefit and his change of position, such that, but for the receipt of the benefit, the defendant's position would not have changed.24

If a claim of unjust enrichment is successfully made out, the plaintiff will have a personal remedy against the defendant, for example, requiring repayment of the sum that had been received or the value of non-monetary benefit received.25 The plaintiff may also make a claim for restitution from the ultimate recipient of the benefit (who may not be the perpetrator).26

Conversion

To succeed in a claim for conversion, the victim must establish that there was a positive wrongful act of dealing with the goods and an intention in so doing to deny the owner's rights or to assert a right inconsistent with them.27

Examples of defences are that the defendant took the goods lawfully under distress, or with the leave and licence of the plaintiff, or that he or she is entitled as against the plaintiff to a lien on the goods.28 Contributory negligence is not a defence.29

The usual remedy sought is either to retake the goods30 or to claim damages.

Conspiracy

Other than against the main perpetrator, claims can also be brought against persons who assisted the main perpetrator.

There are two types of civil conspiracy under Singapore law: (1) conspiracy to injure; and (2) unlawful means conspiracy.

A victim who seeks to establish a conspiracy to injure must establish31 the following:

  1. a combination of two or more persons and an agreement between and amongst them to do certain acts;
  2. the predominant purpose of the conspirators must be to cause damage or injury to the plaintiff;
  3. the acts must actually be performed in furtherance of the agreement; and
  4. damage must be suffered by the plaintiff.

A victim who seeks to establish a conspiracy by unlawful means must establish32 the following:

  1. there was a combination of two or more persons to do certain acts;
  2. the alleged conspirators intended to cause damage or injury to the plaintiff by those acts;
  3. the acts were unlawful;
  4. the acts were performed in furtherance of the agreement; and
  5. the plaintiff suffered loss as a result of the conspiracy.

The usual remedy sought by a successful claimant in a conspiracy claim is that of damages, which is compensatory in nature.

Dishonest assistance and knowing receipt

A person who is not the primary perpetrator can also be held liable if he or she has dishonestly assisted in a breach of fiduciary duty33 or received property known to be transferred in breach of fiduciary duty.34

To succeed in a claim for dishonest assistance, the victim must establish35 the following:

  1. breach of trust or breach of fiduciary obligation;
  2. the 'third party' defendant must have procured, induced or assisted the breach of trust or fiduciary duty;
  3. the 'third party' defendant must have acted dishonestly; and
  4. resulting loss to the claimant.

To succeed in a claim for knowing receipt, the victim of the fraud must establish36 the following:

  1. disposal of the plaintiff's assets in breach of trust (or fiduciary duty);
  2. beneficial receipt by the 'third party' defendant of assets which are traceable as representing the assets of the plaintiff; and
  3. knowledge on the 'third party' defendant's part that the assets received are traceable to a breach of trust or fiduciary duty.

The 'third party' defendant may be held personally liable to account as if he or she were a constructive trustee where he or she has assisted in the breach of fiduciary duty. In this regard, the plaintiff can claim against the 'third party' defendant the value of the property transferred.37

Criminal remedies

A victim can file a police report and request that the authorities investigate the perpetrator and/or abettor of a fraud.38 Fraud offences such as investment fraud, corporate fraud and fraud involving public institutions are usually investigated by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), a specialist division of the Singapore Police Force. Where the fraud involves market misconduct, capital markets or financial advisory offences, the Monetary Authority of Singapore is likely to jointly investigate the matter together with the CAD.

Specific corporate fraud offences are set out in the Penal Code,39 the CA40 and the Income Tax Act,41 and there is no limitation or time bar in respect of criminal offences in Singapore.

As mentioned above, the victim will have much less control over criminal proceedings as compared to civil proceedings. At the stage of investigations, the victim (or its representative) is likely to be asked to attend an interview and provide facts and evidence of the alleged fraud. There is no obligation on the part of the investigating authorities to release information gathered from the investigation to the victim, and they usually do not do so. It is, therefore, difficult to obtain evidence from an investigating authority for use in a victim's separate civil proceedings (if any) unless a timely prosecution is commenced and information made public in trial proceedings.

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the AGC, with the recommendation of the authority or agency investigating the purported offence, will decide whether to: (1) charge the perpetrator; (2) give the perpetrator a warning; or (3) take no further action. The Singapore authorities take allegations of fraud seriously and if there is evidence that an offence of fraud has been committed, they are likely to take firm action against the perpetrator.

A victim can also choose to file a magistrate's complaint with the state courts of Singapore, particularly in instances where authorities have declined to investigate or take action. A magistrate's complaint is generally filed by an individual wishing to commence private prosecution (as opposed to prosecution by the state).

However, a magistrate's complaint is generally not likely to be accepted for filing if:

  1. the act complained of is not a criminal offence;
  2. the offence carries an imprisonment term exceeding three years; or
  3. the respondent has already been charged or issued a stern warning by the state.

Upon successful filing of a magistrate's complaint, a magistrate will examine the complainant and thereafter issue further directions as deemed appropriate. The magistrate retains the discretion to make certain orders as necessary, including directing police investigations or dismissing the complaint. In the event the AGC takes over prosecution of the case, the complaint will be closed.

After a charge has been preferred against the perpetrator, he will have two choices – to plead guilty or to proceed to trial if his or her position is that he or she is innocent. If the matter proceeds to trial, the prosecutor will need to establish that the offence was committed beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

Upon a plea of guilt or a conviction after trial, the court then decides what the penalty should be. A perpetrator convicted of fraud will usually receive a custodial sentence, particularly where the amount defrauded is significant. Fines alone have, however, been ordered in instances where the gravity of the offence is less severe or the perpetrator has mitigating factors of sufficient weight operating in his favour.

In addition, before an offender is convicted of any offence, the court has to consider whether or not to make a compensation order where it may consider it appropriate to do so.42 The court has power to order that the convicted perpetrator of fraud pay a sum fixed by the court by way of compensation to the person injured.43 The court can also order the attachment and sale of movable or immovable property belonging to the perpetrator so that the proceeds of the same can be paid to the victim.

An order for compensation does not affect the right of the victim to a civil remedy for the recovery of any property or for the recovery of damages 'beyond the amount of compensation paid under the order'.44 It should be noted that the courts have held that compensation should only be ordered in instances where the fact and extent of damage are either agreed or clearly and easily ascertainable on the evidence.45

We would also highlight that an order for the convicted offender to pay compensation does not form part of the sentence imposed on the offender, but is for the purpose of allowing the victim to recover compensation where a civil suit is impractical or inadequate.46 Given this, the amount of compensation ordered will generally not exceed what would be reasonably obtainable in civil proceedings.47

ii Defences to fraud claims

See the previous Subsection for defences to fraud claims.

III SEIZURE AND EVIDENCE

Where the perpetrator of a fraud is the subject of a criminal investigation, the investigating authorities have wide ranging powers under the Criminal Procedure Code – to search premises and seize evidence, access computers and freeze assets.

It is in the area of civil claims that seizure of assets and obtaining evidence from third parties is more complicated, and we set out below the general procedural mechanisms commonly relied upon by victims of fraud in civil claims.

i Securing assets and proceeds

Mareva injunction

Where civil claims in respect of fraud are concerned, a plaintiff can apply to seize and secure assets or the proceeds of fraud via court proceedings. This is most commonly done by way of a Mareva injunction or freezing order. An application for a Mareva injunction is usually taken out at the same time as commencement of the civil proceedings, so as to ensure that the defendant does not have notice of the proceedings and time to shift assets.

The court can grant a domestic Mareva injunction (i.e., over assets held in Singapore)48 where the following conditions are met:

  1. there is a valid cause of action over which the Court has jurisdiction, that the domestic Mareva injunction is collateral to;
  2. there is a good arguable case on the merits of the plaintiff's claim;
  3. the defendant has assets within the court's jurisdiction. This includes all assets beneficially held by the defendant, but excludes assets which the defendant legally owns but holds on trust for third parties;49 and
  4. There is a real risk that the defendant will dissipate their assets to frustrate the enforcement of an anticipated judgement by the court.

As for an extraterritorial Mareva injunction (i.e., over assets held outside of Singapore), this can be granted by the court if the same conditions as a domestic Mareva injunction are present, subject to the following modifications:

  1. a valid cause of action must accrue in Singapore;50 and
  2. it must be shown that the defendant has assets outside the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, if the defendant has assets both within and outside the court's jurisdiction, it must then be shown that there are insufficient assets within the court's jurisdiction to satisfy the plaintiff's claim.51

As part of the application for a Mareva injunction, the plaintiff will be required to provide an undertaking to comply with any order for damages (sustained by the defendant and third parties as a result of the Mareva injunction) that the court may make.52

To support this undertaking, the plaintiff may be required to:

  1. make a payment into court;
  2. provide a bond by an insurance company that has a place of business in Singapore;
  3. provide a written guarantee from a bank that has a place of business in Singapore; or
  4. make a payment to the plaintiff's solicitor that is to be held by the solicitor as an officer of the court pending any order for damages.53

An application for a Mareva injunction also requires full and frank disclosure, in that the court must be fully informed by the plaintiff of all material facts. Where an application for a Mareva injunction does not contain all material facts, and this is brought to the attention of the court by, for example, the defendant, this may thwart the plaintiff's attempts to seize or secure the defendant's assets.

In Singapore, the courts have also held that, in principle, evidence of a collateral or ulterior purpose on the part of the plaintiff could justify the refusal of a Mareva injunction, although this would ordinarily be difficult to establish at an early stage of proceedings in which Mareva injunction applications are usually brought.54

ii Obtaining evidence

Anton Piller order

In respect of obtaining evidence in the context of civil claims in respect of fraud, a plaintiff can apply to search premises and seize evidence by way of an Anton Piller or a search and seizure order. Similar to a Mareva injunction, this is usually done at the same time as commencement of the civil proceedings, so as to ensure that the defendant does not have notice of the proceedings and time to destroy evidence.

An ex parte55 Anton Piller order may, in general, be granted if the following conditions are met:56

  1. there is an extremely strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action;
  2. the potential or actual damage to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff faces if the Anton Piller order is not granted, is serious;
  3. there is clear evidence that the defendant has incriminating documents or items in their possession; and
  4. there is a real risk that the defendant may destroy the above documents or items before an application inter partes57 can be made.

However, it is worth noting that even if the above conditions are met, a court may not necessarily grant an Anton Piller order. Rather, a court will only do so after determining that the prospective harm the plaintiff faces (as a result of the Anton Piller not being granted), outweighs the prospective harm that the defendant faces (as a result of the order).58

As part of the application for an Anton Piller order, similar to an application for a Mareva injunction, the plaintiff will have to undertake to pay damages sustained by the defendant as a result of the Anton Piller order if so ordered by the court. In addition, the plaintiff must also undertake to comply with any order for damages that the court makes in connection with a finding that the actual carrying out of the Anton Piller order was: (1) in breach of the terms of the order made; or (2) otherwise inconsistent with the plaintiff's solicitors' duties as officers of the court.59

To support this undertaking, the plaintiff may be required to take actions similar to those in an application for a Mareva injunction.60 An application for an Anton Piller order also requires full and frank disclosure of a similar nature to that required in an application for a Mareva injunction.61

Third party discovery or bankers trust order

Where evidence needed for a civil suit in respect of fraud rests with a third party (rather than the defendant) or where there is a need, Singapore's civil proceedings provide for certain mechanisms to allow the plaintiff to obtain this evidence.

For example, where the identities of the perpetrators of a fraud have not been identified and there is a need to trace the property that the victim has been defrauded of, a prospective plaintiff may apply for a Norwich Pharmacal order (also known as an application for pre-action discovery).

Pre-action discovery, may, in general, be granted if the following conditions62 are met:

  1. the non-party possessing the relevant information must have been involved in the wrongdoing, though the non-party need not have necessarily caused or known of the wrongdoing;63
  2. there is a reasonable prima facie case of wrongdoing by the unidentified perpetrators;64 and
  3. granting the order is necessary to enable the Plaintiff to bring proceedings, or it is just and convenient in the interests of justice to grant the same.65

Where the third party who has the evidence needed is a bank, a plaintiff may also apply for what is known as a bankers trust order to preserve or trace the proceeds of fraud residing with the bank. Generally speaking, an application for a bankers trust order is granted on similar grounds to a Norwich Pharmacal order66 and, where the court grants such an order, this will override the usual banking secrecy considerations that banks have in releasing information in respect of its customers assets to third parties.

IV FRAUD IN SPECIFIC CONTEXTS

i Banking and money laundering

Where fraud involving banks or money laundering has been committed, this will usually be an offence under the Penal Code or under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act67 (CDSA).

The CDSA criminalises, among others, acts of money laundering and provides for confiscation of benefits derived from the same. The CDSA also imposes reporting requirements (by way of a suspicious transaction report) on those with reasonable grounds to suspect that property may be connected to, for example, proceeds of criminal misconduct.

There are also various rules and regulations overseen by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (the central bank of Singapore), which focus on anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism and which regulate, among others, financial institutions.

ii Insolvency

Where monies are owed to the victim, the victim can apply to make the perpetrator bankrupt or insolvent as the case may be.

In the instance that the perpetrator is either bankrupt (where the perpetrator is an individual) or insolvent (where the perpetrator is a corporate entity), there are also certain protections for the victim that will allow a clawback of monies or assets, or both, if the bankrupt or insolvent perpetrator has, within a specific time period, entered into transactions at an undervalue68 or given an unfair preference to a person.69

iii Arbitration

Section 24(a) of the International Arbitration Act70 provides that an arbitral award may be set aside by the court where the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud.

iv Fraud's effect on evidentiary rules and legal privilege

Pursuant to Section 128(1) of the Evidence Act,71 advocates and solicitors are not permitted, without a client's express consent, to disclose privileged communication made in the context of the solicitor and client relationship. However, there are two important exceptions to this rule in Section 128(2) which provides that: (1) communication made in furtherance of an illegal purpose; and (2) any fact observed by an advocate and solicitor in the course of his or her employment showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his or her employment are not protected from disclosure.

V INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS

i Conflict of law and choice of law in fraud claims

In order for a cross-border fraud claim to be heard in the Singapore Courts:

  1. there must be a legal connection between the case or the defendant and Singapore; and
  2. the Singapore Court must be satisfied that, bearing in mind the degree of connection of the case with Singapore and other countries, Singapore is the most appropriate forum for the dispute.

In order for a case commenced in the Singapore Courts to be served out of jurisdiction, the merits of the case must also pass a threshold test.

ii Collection of evidence in support of proceedings abroad

Where criminal proceedings in respect of fraud have been instituted abroad, the overseas authorities can make a request to the AGC for mutual legal assistance, which can include the taking of evidence. Singapore has existing mutual legal assistance treaties with a number of countries, and these countries will be rendered assistance in accordance with the terms of the respective treaty and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.72 Where a country does not have such a treaty with Singapore, it may receive assistance if there is an undertaking of reciprocity.

In respect of civil proceedings, an application for a pre-action discovery or bankers trust order (as discussed above) can be made in support of proceedings abroad.

iii Seizure of assets or proceeds of fraud in support of the victim of fraud

The question as to whether the Singapore courts can grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings, and in circumstances where the merits of the claim will not be determined in Singapore, has also been considered by the courts. In this regard, the current position is that the Singapore courts can grant a Mareva injunction even in aid of foreign court proceedings, so long as it appears to the court to be just or convenient that such an order should be made.73

iv Enforcement of judgments granted abroad in relation to fraud claims

Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act74 (RECJA) and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act75 (REFJA), when certain requirements are met, judgments made by the superior courts of certain countries may be registered and enforced directly in Singapore. It is generally easier to register a judgment pursuant to the REFJA than the RECJA due to the fact that registration under the former is available as a matter of right rather than a matter of the court's discretion.

In respect of foreign judgments that do not fall within the RECJA and REFJA, these may generally be enforced under common law if the judgment is:

  1. for a definite sum of money;
  2. final and conclusive; and
  3. the foreign court has jurisdiction in the context of conflicts of law.

v Fraud as a defence to enforcement of judgments granted abroad

If a foreign judgment was obtained by fraud, this would be a basis for the courts in Singapore to deny enforcement of the said foreign judgment in Singapore under the RECJA, REFJA and common law.

VI CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS

In a recent development that took place at the end of 2018, and which signifies the seriousness with which Singapore regards money laundering offences, Parliament passed various amendments to the CDSA, including:

  1. an increase in penalties for corporations and professional service providers who are involved with money laundering;
  2. an increase in penalties for not reporting suspicious transactions;
  3. an increase in penalties for tipping off on investigations or a STR lodged under the CDSA; and
  4. the introduction of a new offence that criminalises the possession or use by an accused of property that would be suspected by a reasonable person of being benefits from criminal conduct, if the accused cannot satisfactorily explain how he or she came by the property.

Separately, a new omnibus bill that consolidates both personal and corporate insolvency laws was passed by Parliament at the end of 2018. Once the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 comes into force, undervalue transactions and unfair preferences entered into and made by a bankrupt or insolvent perpetrator will be governed by this new Act.


Footnotes

1 Aaron Lee is a partner and Lee May Ling is a senior associate at Allen & Gledhill LLP.

2 Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) Section 6(1)(a).

3 Or his or her agent.

4 Limitation Act (Cap 163) Section 29(1).

5 Panatron Pte Ltd v. Lee Cheow Lee [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 at [14].

6 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v. Archer Daniels Midland Co [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 at [40].

7 Or by a class of persons that includes the plaintiff.

8 Panatron Pte Ltd v. Lee Cheow Lee [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 at [24].

9 DBS Bank Ltd v. Carrier Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2008] 3 SLR(R) 261 at [108] – [109].

10 Gary Chan and Lee Pey Woan, The Law of Torts in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2nd Ed, 2016) at paragraph 14.020.

11 Ng Eng Ghee and others v. Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109 at [137] and [142].

12 Keech v. Sanford (1726) 25 ER 223.

13 ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd v. Puspha Rajaram Lakhiani and another [1998] 2 SLR(R) 721; Yuen Chow Hin and another v. ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd [2009] 2 SLR(R) 786.

14 The Law Society of Singapore v. Khushvinder Singh Chopra [1998] 3 SLR(R) 490.

15 Lee Hiok Woon and others v. Lee Hiok Ping and others [1993] 2 SLR(R) 530

16 Hytech Builders Pte Ltd v. Tan Eng Leong and another [1995] 1 SLR(R) 576.

17 Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v. Lui Andrew Stewart [2012] 4 SLR 308.

18 Ng Eng Ghee and others v. Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109.

19 Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, Volume 9 (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2018 Reissue) at paragraphs 110.228–110.229 and 110.231–110.232.

20 Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed.

21 Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v. Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another [2013] 3 SLR 801 at [98].

22 Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v. Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another suit [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 at [260].

23 Seagate Technology Pte Ltd v. Goh Han Kim [1994] 3 SLR(R) 836.

24 Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v. Kaushik Rajiv [2013] 2 SLR 543 at [67]; Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v. Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another suit [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 at [329].

25 Andrew Phang Boon Leong, The Law of Contract in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2012) at paragraph 23.243.

26 ibid.

27 UCO Bank (formerly known as United Commercial Bank) v. Ringler Pte Ltd [1995] 1 SLR(R) 399.

28 Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, Volume 18 (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2017 Reissue) at paragraph 240.575.

29 Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed) Section 3(1).

30 Blades v. Higgs (1861) 10 CBNS 713, 142 E.R. 634.

31 Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v. Ching Kai Huat and others [2008] 1 SLR(R) 80 at [23].

32 EFT Holdings, Inc v. Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 860 at [112].

33 Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, Volume 9 (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2018 Reissue) at paragraph 110.234.

34 ibid.

35 Caltong (Australia) Pty Ltd (formerly known as Tong Tien See Holding (Australia) Pty Ltd) and another v. Tong Tien See Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2002] 2 SLR(R) 94 at [33].

36 George Raymond Zage III v. Ho Chi Kwong and another [2010] 2 SLR 589.

37 Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, Volume 9 (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2018 Reissue) at paragraph 110.234.

38 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) Section 109.

39 Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed; See, e.g., Sections 403, 405, 407, 409, 411, 415, 421–424, 463, 468 and 477A.

40 See, e.g., Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) Sections 157, 401, 402 and 406.

41 See, e.g., Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2014 Rev Ed) Sections 96 and 96A.

42 Tay Wee Kiat and another v. Public Prosecutor [2018] 5 SLR 438 at [6].

43 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) Section 359(1).

44 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) Section 359(4).

45 Tay Wee Kiat and another v. Public Prosecutor [2018] 5 SLR 438 at [8].

46 id, at [7].

47 id, at [10].

48 Singapore Civil Procedure (Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell, 2019) at page 666.

49 id, at page 668, citing STX Corp v. Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja [2014] 2 SLR 1261 at [22].

50 id, at page 667.

51 id, at page 675, citing Guan Chong Cocoa Manufacturer Sdn Bhd v. Pratiwi Shipping SA [2003] 1 SLR(R) 157 at [29].

52 id, at pages 656 and 674.

53 id, at page 657.

54 JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v. Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others [2018] 2 SLR 159.

55 i.e. where the defendant's solicitors are not given notice of the application for the Anton Piller order and only the plaintiff's solicitors attend the application hearing.

56 Singapore Civil Procedure (Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell, 2019) at page 682, citing Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v. Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2006] 1 SLR(R) 901 at [14].

57 i.e. where the application is served on the defendant and both sets of solicitors attend the application hearing.

58 Computerland Corp. v. Yew Seng Computers Pte Ltd [1991] 2 SLR(R) 379; See also Singapore Civil Procedure (Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell, 2019) at page 683.

59 Singapore Civil Procedure (Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell, 2019) at page 684.

60 ibid.

61 Singapore Civil Procedure (Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell, 2019) at page 687.

62 Dorsey James Michael v. World Sport Group Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 208.

63 id, at [39].

64 id, at [44].

65 id, at [45].

66 Singapore Civil Procedure (Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell, 2019) at page 573, citing La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v. Deutsche Bank AG [2016] SGHCR 3 at [59], [70] and [71].

67 Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed.

68 Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) Section 98.

69 Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) Section 99.

70 Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed.

71 Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed.

72 Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed.

73 China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and another v. Wu Xiaodong and another [2018] SGHC 178.

74 Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed.

75 Cap 265, 2001 Rev Ed.