Welcome Address by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam at the SICC Seminar 2026

Judge, Supreme Court of Singapore

President, Singapore International Commercial Court

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Welcome to the SICC-SAL Seminar 2026. At the SICC, we pride ourselves on bringing together leading experts from around the world, and today’s seminar is a great example of what we do. It really is a treat this afternoon to hear from leading judges, academics and lawyers on the topic of interim injunctions. We will begin with an anecdote from Justice Sir Bernard Rix, who was the barrister who obtained the original Mareva on the 23rd of June 1975.Headlining the two sessions are two of the world’s leading authorities on injunctions, Steven Gee KC and Professor Yeo Tiong Min SC, and each of their addresses will be followed by panels that comprise a mix of distinguished judges and eminent lawyers.

2. It is a testament to the excellence of the speakers and panellists that we have more than 230 people in attendance.

3. Both Mareva injunctions or freezing orders and anti-suit injunctions have become important tools in the effective management of commercial disputes that have a cross-border element. Indeed, interim injunctions are now granted in support of proceedings brought outside the jurisdiction of the court whether in a foreign court or arbitration, regardless of whether there is a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court granting the injunction. Speaking for myself I am hoping to hear suggestions of the way forward in the three respects. One is specific to freezing orders while the other two relate to injunctions generally.

4. The first one concerns how we deal with situations where a debtor controls assets but doesn’t have a beneficial interest in them. Under what circumstances if any should a freezing order extend to such assets? What is the role of receivership?

5. The second one concerns procedure. Currently, freezing orders are often sought ex-parte, without notice to the defendant. This happens sometimes but less frequently in relation to other types of interim injunction. The time taken for the matter to return to court for a full inter-partes hearing can be quite long, because the defendant needs to file an application to set aside and then there will be substantial exchanges of evidence. In the intervening period, which can last months, the injunction bites. Are the obligation of full and frank disclosure and the undertaking as to damages sufficient safeguards against abuse? Might it perhaps be opportune to relook at procedure? Instead of granting the injunction with effect until the hearing of a set aside application should we consider reverting to the procedure that I recall from my early days in practice, when the injunction granted on an ex-parte basis only had effect until a stipulated return date when then defendant would be heard. The period might be two to three weeks. Would this be a fairer way of dealing with things?

6. The third point concerns cross-border cooperation between courts or jurisdictions. For example, how should freezing orders be managed where assets are spread over multiple jurisdictions? Turning to anti-suit injunctions, we now see the rise of anti-anti-suit injunctions. In both cases, is there a need for greater cooperation between courts and if so on what basis? One avenue might be court-to-court communication and cooperation possibly based on principles to be developed by a body such as the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts. Another avenue, which would put things on a sounder footing, but be considerably more challenging to achieve, might be to develop an international convention or conventions to which states could sign up. 

7. I have no doubt that in addition to these three points much else of importance and relevance will be discussed. I am sure that like me everyone here eagerly anticipates the discussion that will follow, and with that sentiment I will yield.