← All Authorities
Singapore freezing injunctions mareva

Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of India (No 2)

[2016] SGCA 32
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2016
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Singapore Court of Appeal considered requirements for a worldwide Mareva freezing order, including good arguable case and risk of dissipation of assets.

Key Principle

Mareva injunction; worldwide freezing order; good arguable case and risk of dissipation

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of India (No 2) and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Grains and Industrial Products...