Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Closing Remarks at the SICC Seminar 2026

SICC Seminar 2026

Closing Remarks 

Tuesday, 13 January 2026

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon 

Supreme Court of Singapore

2. Interim injunctions are powerful tools in the judicial arsenal. Most in this room will recall American Cyanamid⁽¹⁾ and the famous balance of convenience test, which was groundbreaking in many respects, but perhaps especially because this interim relief had the potential to have disproportionate impact on substantive outcomes in litigation. And that was so because of some key characteristics of the interim injunction: it was typically dealt with on a very short time frame; it would typically be resolved with limited evidence and without final findings of fact; and the focus would usually be on preserving the status quo, though in some settings, it could also take the form of enforcing an underlying obligation by restraining the breach of that obligation, including in the context of the anti-suit injunction (“ASI”). 

3. Typically, the order would be prohibitive in nature, requiring the respondent to stop engaging in behaviour that seem to violate or might be found to violate the applicant's rights. Those characteristics, when matched against the corresponding position in the context of the final litigation, can highlight the importance of interim relief and injunctions. Final litigation typically takes too long, often costs too much, and by the time the issue is finally resolved, if nothing has been done to preserve the point of the litigation, it might well be that for all practical purposes, the game is over. 

4. The extraordinary potency of such relief has long been acknowledged. Some varieties of these injunctions have, as Justice Bernard Rix just observed, been described as “nuclear weapons” of civil litigation.⁽²⁾ Their force is underscored by the consequences of disobedience. As an injunction is directed personally to the respondent, non-compliance constitutes contempt of court, and certainly in Singapore, the Courts have not hesitated to enforce custodial sentences when injunctions are flagrantly breached.⁽³⁾

5. The power to grant injunctions exists for a principled purpose, and that is to preserve the integrity of proceedings pending a trial. But as commercial ingenuity grew and expanded, so too did the techniques that were employed by litigants to frustrate the substantive outcome of litigation. The purpose of the Mareva injunction, for instance, is reflected in its requirements in Singapore: that there be a good, arguable case on the merits of the claimant's claim; and a real risk that the defendant will dissipate its assets to frustrate the enforcement of an anticipated judgment of the Court.⁽⁴⁾ As the High Court of Singapore has observed, the balance of convenience test is simply not appropriate here, because the entire purpose of the Mareva injunction is to prevent the defendant from disabling himself from meeting an award of damages, and it would be illogical to ask if, but for the grant of the injunction, the prejudice suffered by the claimant in the form of the defendants’ unjustified dealing of its assets could be compensated in damages.⁽⁵⁾

6. The rise of cross-border commerce has compounded these difficulties. The first challenge that we talked about is the enforcement of orders across borders. An order made in one jurisdiction may be rendered ineffective if assets, parties, or intermediaries are located elsewhere, reducing judgments to little more than paper victories. Another issue is the real possibility of duplicative and abusive litigation. Parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions are sometimes commenced not to vindicate rights, but to exhaust opponents, exert strategic pressure, or sometimes with the misguided notion that there is a benefit in suing in one's own jurisdiction. A rather extreme example is Samsung v ZTE,⁽⁶⁾ where Samsung filed English proceedings related to alleged infringement of patents, and two working days later, ZTE commenced similar proceedings in Chongqing. Proceedings were later also filed in Frankfurt, Munich, Brazil, Hangzhou, and in the US. 

7. New types of injunctions tailor-made to prevent some of these illicit practices have emerged, and several difficulties arise, including in relation to enforcement. And let me say how grateful we are to Steven Gee KC for his superb presentation that led to the subsequent panel discussion in the first part of this afternoon. On the developments on that front, I make a couple of points. The Mareva Injunction itself clearly has developed. There was, first, the recognition of the worldwide Mareva injunction in 1988 following a trilogy of judgments, handed down just over a month apart from each other.⁽⁷⁾ As Lawrence Collins observed before his elevation to the bench, the judgments were a response to the widespread abolition of exchange controls and the growth of offshore tax havens for cash and securities, which made it “easier for defaulters in international business to make themselves judgment proof, and for dishonest fiduciaries to enjoy the legal fruits of their breaches”.⁽⁸⁾

8. The second is the Chabra jurisdiction,⁽⁹⁾ where a non-party against whom no cause of action is being asserted may be added as a defendant where there is good reason to suppose that the assets held by that party are in truth the assets of the defendant against whom a cause of action is being asserted.⁽¹⁰⁾ This was a response to another type of unscrupulous behaviour. 

9. A further development is the recognition of the Court's power to grant injunctions in aid of foreign proceedings. The objective was to prevent defendants from dissipating or relocating assets across borders in order to frustrate the enforcement of judgments. And this position is now codified in legislation in Singapore, in Section 4(10A) of the Civil Law Act 1909, on which you heard quite some discussion today. Here, let me just say that, at this moment, I am not entirely convinced that that section has the force and the breadth that Steven Gee KC was urging upon us. But second, let me also say that I am very grateful to Steven for his thoughtful suggestions on a possible big project that might lie ahead of us in terms of working on a possible convention on interim reliefs. For someone who has been devoted to the cause of trying to advance a systemic approach to the resolution of international commercial disputes, this is extremely attractive. But I have to say, at this time, I do wonder whether there is a real appetite in a world that seems to be experiencing such a strong retreat from multilateralism for such an ambitious project. Perhaps the answer is to think of this in the first place as a potential project for a small group of like-minded jurisdictions, with sufficient shared interests and linkages to explore. 

10. The digital frontier that is upon us presents a new inflection point. If enforcement is difficult when assets are physically beyond borders, it becomes even more complex in a borderless, digital environment. Consider avatars wearing counterfeit, branded fashion, and non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) using copyrighted skins, characters, or logos. The metaverse raises fundamental questions about the nature of virtual assets that are the subject of these injunctions, including whether such assets are capable of giving rise to proprietary rights which would be capable of being protected by an injunction. Just a couple of examples: the use of brands’ trademarks, without authorisation, on virtual goods in the ecosystem of Second Life, a multiplayer, virtual world led to metaverse-related lawsuits.⁽¹¹⁾ Closer to home, the Singapore High Court decided that NFTs are capable of giving rise to proprietary rights which can be protected by an injunction. The court observed that NFTs represent not just information, but rather data securely encoded and stored in a blockchain ledger.⁽¹²⁾ There remains an issue as to the type of property that is involved, but speaking for myself, and without the benefit of arguments, I do think there is good sense in the observation by Justice Kristy Tan that this may not always be a fruitful, necessary, or particularly valuable inquiry. It is not to say that it is to be ignored, but we should evaluate in each case and ask ourselves the questions whether it is relevant and why. But subject to that, I think it may be a point that we are stumbling on for no particularly good reason. 

11. Then, there has been the ASI, which was the subject of the second part of the discussion this afternoon, for which we had the benefit of Professor Yeo Tiong Min’s superb presentation. ASIs have evolved from their historical equity origins to address modern jurisdictional challenges. Primarily, they are directed to restrain proceedings in foreign courts or tribunals.⁽¹³⁾ ASIs are granted based on the Court's power to protect both the integrity of its processes, and to protect litigants from vexatious or oppressive conduct, particularly where multiple proceedings are instituted primarily to pressure a party.⁽¹⁴⁾ And they have also been used to restrain not just foreign court proceedings, but also arbitrations, to preserve the jurisdiction of a chosen forum.⁽¹⁵⁾

12. A related type is the anti-enforcement injunction (“AEI”), which Tiong Min spoke about. AEIs represent a variant of ASIs that operate after foreign judgments have been obtained rather than to prevent their formation. AEIs may be granted, typically, where foreign judgments were procured by fraud or obtained too quickly or secretly to enable an ASI to have been sought in time.⁽¹⁶⁾ As Justice Mary Arden observed, this category of injunction raises some really tricky questions, because they invariably involve a contest of jurisdictions, and that raises significant issues with respect to comity, and even, as Raymond Zhu suggested, with sovereignty. 

13. The seminar today has covered these issues in deeply informed and informative ways, and I think we have all been enriched by the discussions. I want to close by just observing that commercial courts will continue to play an important role in the development of this space. Given their substantial exposure to interim relief applications across multiple jurisdictions, commercial courts will have the opportunity to develop a sophisticated and coherent body of jurisprudence through published and reasoned judgments. And these will not only guide practitioners, but also seed the debate among courts themselves as to how they should go about addressing these recurrent issues. 

14. Because many of these courts, especially the international commercial courts, bring together judges from diverse legal traditions, this promises to promote and foster a rich dialogue that will ultimately strengthen our jurisprudence because of the manifold contributions. And through transnational appellate mechanisms, such as those of the International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”), commercial courts can provide institutional leadership in identifying emerging themes and articulating coherent and principled responses to some of the novel challenges that we will face. 

15. Our discussions today remind us that injunctions are not just procedural devices, but they are instruments through which courts protect the integrity of their processes and uphold the rule of law. Knowledge and mastery of the relevant principles are probably more important than ever before for a commercial practitioner. From the Mareva injunction to challenges posed by digital assets, to ASIs and AEIs, we have seen how the law has adapted, not by abandoning principle, but by reframing it, in forms and ways capable of meeting new realities and challenges. I hope that the conversations we have begun here will not end with the seminar, but will continue as commercial practices evolve, and as technologies and our operating environments continue to change. 

16. Let me close by expressing on behalf of the SICC and the Singapore Academy of Law our heartfelt gratitude to all of you for being here; to each of the speakers for the time and the trouble that they have taken to contribute to our discussions; and to our sponsoring organisations, and partners. Finally, I personally want to thank and am deeply grateful to our wonderful staff members of both organisations for the effort they have made to ensure the success of today's seminar. There is a cocktail after this, and I am sure that that will enable us to continue some of these conversations in a much more convivial setting. Thank you once again, and good evening.