Singapore HC Sets Aside Arbitral Award Over Procedural Unfairness in Construction Dispute

The Singapore High Court’s decision in Alphard Maritime Ltd v Samson Maritime Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 154 delivers an in-depth examination of when courts will set aside worldwide freezing (Mareva) and prohibitory injunctions, especially in support of arbitration.

For advocates, arbitrators, and commercial actors alike, the case is a masterclass in how the courts assess “real risk of dissipation,” urgency, proper parties, and the use of injunctive powers in cross-border disputes.

What's The Matter?

Alphard Maritime claimed that Samson Maritime and Underwater Services breached a settlement agreement by selling vessels and shares intended for Alphard to a third party, J M Baxi Marine Services (Baxi), for a higher price, then using those proceeds to repay lenders and satisfy pre-existing obligations.

Alphard, anticipating the risk that assets might be “spirited away,” secured interim worldwide freezing orders and a prohibitory injunction against both sellers and the third-party buyer, as well as other creditors.

What Court Said?

The Court, per Philip Jeyaretnam J, reiterated the established principle: a freezing order (Mareva injunction) demands a real risk not a theoretical or speculative one that the defendant will dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement of a judgment.

Legitimate commercial dealings, particularly repayment of known debts, do not by themselves amount to dissipation.

In this instance, the repayment of liabilities with the proceeds from the Baxi sale was expected and even referenced in the original agreement with Alphard.

Further, the assets were not sold secretly, but through transactions disclosed in public records a further indicator of legitimate conduct, not dishonesty or surreptitious evasion.

Key Takeaways

The decision is equally instructive on injunctive relief against non-parties. While Singapore courts may, in principle, issue interim injunctions against non-arbitrating parties under section 12A of the International Arbitration Act, strict requirements must still be met: sufficient nexus to Singapore, forum conveniens, and a serious question to be tried.

Here, the prohibitory injunction against Baxi a foreign entity, with no Singapore presence or assets was set aside as the court declined to find Singapore was an appropriate forum for such relief, especially absent evidence of collusion or asset control relevant to the arbitration.

Moreover, the order reached beyond preventing Baxi from assisting in dissipation, to restraining it from asserting any contractual rights even though no proprietary claim was advanced.

The Judge found this unjustified, noting that granting such wide orders against non-parties could unfairly prevent them or even pre-existing creditors from pursuing their legitimate commercial rights.

A crucial part of the judgment deals with the necessity of urgency in ex parte (without notice) applications for injunctions.

The Court found that, since the dispute had long been “in the open” with interim relief already in place in India, there was no realistic prospect that notice of Alphard’s court action would cause any sudden dissipation.

The legislative framework under s 12A of the International Arbitration Act and the Practice Directions demands strict compliance with requirements for urgency absent which applications without notice, or without seeking the arbitral tribunal’s permission, cannot be justified.

Ultimately, the Court set aside the freezing and prohibitory orders, holding there was no real risk of dissipation, no proper basis to restrain the third-party buyer, and no urgency justifying ex parte relief.

The judgment emphasises that freezing orders are powerful but exceptional weapons; courts will demand hard evidence, a balanced approach, and respect both for due process and for the rights of third parties caught in commercial crossfire.

For litigators and transactional lawyers, this case underscores the importance of acting promptly, gathering solid evidence if asset dissipation is feared, and following both the letter and the spirit of procedural rules—especially when seeking transnational or ex parte relief. Strategic use of Mareva injunctions remains possible, but the courts' scrutiny will be intense and grounded in commercial reality.2025-SGHC-154.pdf

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional for specific guidance on their individual circumstances.

Case Citation: ALPHARD MARITIME LTD. v SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED & 7 Ors [2025] SGHC 154 | Decision Date: 11 Aug 2025 | HC/OA 391/2025 ( HC/SUM 1440/2025,HC/SUM 1486/2025 )

Refrences:

A Mareva injunction, also known as a freezing order or freezing injunction, is a powerful legal tool used by courts to prevent a defendant from dissipating or moving their assets before a final judgment is reached in a civil case. Its primary purpose is to ensure that if the plaintiff is successful in their claim, there will be assets available to satisfy the judgment.

The injunction originated in English law, taking its name from the 1975 case Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA.

It was initially used to restrain foreign defendants from removing assets from the court's jurisdiction, but its scope has since expanded to apply to any defendant, whether foreign or domestic, and to assets both within and outside the jurisdiction.

Section 12A of the International Arbitration Act

12.Powers of arbitral tribunal (1) Without prejudice to the powers set out in any other provision of this Act and in the Model Law, an arbitral tribunal has powers to make orders or give directions to any party for —

(a) security for costs;

(b) discovery of documents and discovery of facts;

[Act 31 of 2022 wef 01/11/2022]

(c) giving of evidence by affidavit;

(d) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any property which is or forms part of the subject matter of the dispute;

(e) samples to be taken from, or any observation to be made of or experiment conducted upon, any property which is or forms part of the subject matter of the dispute;

(f) the preservation and interim custody of any evidence for the purposes of the proceedings;

(g) securing the amount in dispute;

(h) ensuring that any award which may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual by the dissipation of assets by a party;

(i) an interim injunction or any other interim measure; and

(j) enforcing any obligation of confidentiality —

(i) that the parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed to in writing, whether in the arbitration agreement or in any other document;

(ii) under any written law or rule of law; or

(iii) under the rules of arbitration (including the rules of arbitration of an institution or organisation) agreed to or adopted by the parties.

[32/2020]

(2) Unless the parties to an arbitration agreement have (whether in the arbitration agreement or in any other document in writing) agreed to the contrary, an arbitral tribunal has power to administer oaths to or take affirmations of the parties and witnesses.

(3) Unless the parties to an arbitration agreement have (whether in the arbitration agreement or in any other document in writing) agreed to the contrary, an arbitral tribunal has power to adopt, if the arbitral tribunal thinks fit, inquisitorial processes.

(4) The power of the arbitral tribunal to order a claimant to provide security for costs as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must not be exercised by reason only that the claimant is —

(a) an individual ordinarily resident outside Singapore; or

(b) a corporation or an association incorporated or formed under the law of a country outside Singapore, or

whose central management and control is exercised outside Singapore.

(5) Without prejudice to the application of Article 28 of the Model Law, an arbitral tribunal, in deciding the dispute that is the subject of the arbitral proceedings —

(a) may award any remedy or relief that could have been ordered by the General Division of the High Court if the dispute had been the subject of civil proceedings in the General Division of the High Court;

(b) may award simple or compound interest on the whole or any part of any sum in accordance with section 20(1).

[12/2012; 40/2019]

(6) All orders or directions made or given by an arbitral tribunal in the course of an arbitration are, by permission of the General Division of the High Court, enforceable in the same manner as if they were orders made by a court and, where permission is so given, judgment may be entered in terms of the order or direction.

[40/2019]

[Act 25 of 2021 wef 01/04/2022]

12A. Court-ordered interim measures(1) This section is to apply in relation to an arbitration —

(a) to which this Part applies; and

(b) irrespective of whether the place of arbitration is in the territory of Singapore.

[26/2009]

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (6), for the purpose of and in relation to an arbitration referred to in subsection (1), the General Division of the High Court has the same power of making an order in respect of any of the matters set out in section 12(1)(c) to (j) as it has for the purpose of and in relation to an action or a matter in the court.

[26/2009; 40/2019; 32/2020]

(3) The General Division of the High Court may refuse to make an order under subsection (2) if, in the opinion of the General Division of the High Court, the fact that the place of arbitration is outside Singapore or likely to be outside Singapore when it is designated or determined makes it inappropriate to make the order.

[26/2009; 40/2019]

(4) If the case is one of urgency, the General Division of the High Court may, on the application of a party or proposed party to the arbitral proceedings, make such orders under subsection (2) as the General Division of the High Court thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets.

[26/2009; 40/2019]

(5) If the case is not one of urgency, the General Division of the High Court is to make an order under subsection (2) only on the application of a party to the arbitral proceedings (upon notice to the other parties and to the arbitral tribunal) made with the permission of the arbitral tribunal or the agreement in writing of the other parties.

[26/2009; 40/2019]

(6) In every case, the General Division of the High Court is to make an order under subsection (2) only if or to the extent that the arbitral tribunal, and any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with power in that regard, has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively.

[26/2009; 40/2019]

(7) An order made by the General Division of the High Court under subsection (2) ceases to have effect in whole or in part (as the case may be) if the arbitral tribunal, or any such arbitral or other institution or person having power to act in relation to the subject matter of the order, makes an order which expressly relates to the whole or part of the order under subsection (2).