Background
The claimant applied for a Mareva injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with assets including a property at 5 Goodman Road. At the hearing on 23 June 2026, defence counsel sought an adjournment to file a reply affidavit and pointed out that the property was owned by the defendants’ father, not the defendants.
The court adjourned the matter and directed the claimant to say whether he would proceed. The claimant subsequently withdrew the application. The parties could not agree on costs, so they made written submissions on the appropriate costs order.
The Court’s Holding
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin ordered the claimant to pay the defendants fixed costs of S$13,000, inclusive of disbursements. The court held that defence counsel should not reasonably have undertaken work after the 23 June hearing and before the claimant confirmed he would proceed; the court’s directions had been designed to minimise costs.
But the court accepted that the defendants’ solicitors had needed to act urgently from 19 June to the 23 June hearing, including over a weekend, because a Mareva injunction is serious and intrusive relief. Reviewing the application, taking instructions, assessing dissipation risk and the legal requirements, and preparing a response were reasonable steps. In those circumstances, S$13,000 all-in was not unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
- A claimant who withdraws a Mareva injunction application may be ordered to pay the respondents’ reasonable urgent-response costs.
- The court distinguished between necessary pre-hearing work and unnecessary work after an adjournment intended to reduce costs.
- The absence of a reply affidavit and a short hearing did not negate the reasonable work required to respond urgently to the application.
Why It Matters
The decision recognises the practical burden imposed by an urgent Mareva injunction application. Costs may reflect the work reasonably required to respond promptly to such relief, even where the application is withdrawn before substantive determination.