THREE ARROWS CAPITAL LTD & 2 Ors v KYLE LIVINGSTON DAVIES & Anor
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Philip Jeyaretnam |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Advocatus Law LLP, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, WongPartnership LLP, Kwong Kai Sheng, Leo Zhen Wei Lionel, Luo Qinghui, Muhammed Ismail Bin k.o. Noordin, Pillai K Muralidharan, Saadhvika Jayanth, Soon Wen Qi Andrea, T Abirami, Tao Tao, Yau Chun Shin |
Source: [2024] SGHC 164, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (13)
Case Significance
Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others v Davies, Kyle Livingston and another [2024] SGHC 164 was decided in the General Division of the High Court on 28 June 2024 by Philip Jeyaretnam J, in Originating Application No 1259 of 2023 (Summonses Nos 309 and 716 of 2024), following a hearing on 24 May 2024. The applicants were Three Arrows Capital Ltd together with Christopher Farmer and Russell Crumpler, each solely in his capacity as a duly appointed joint liquidator of Three Arrows Capital Ltd, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). The respondents were Kyle Livingston Davies, the company's co-founder, and his wife Kelly Kaili Chen.
The liquidators sought an interim freezing order against the co-founder and his wife, the latter both on the basis that she held assets as his nominee and on the basis of claims made against her personally. The application was made without notice to the respondents, in support of proceedings in the BVI where a worldwide freezing order had been granted, and it was granted. The catchwords frame the issues around Mareva injunctions: whether the threshold of a good arguable case had been met, whether a real risk of dissipation of assets had been demonstrated, and whether the duty to give full and frank disclosure of material information had been complied with on the without-notice application. The matter cited the Civil Law Act. Counsel included WongPartnership LLP for the applicants and Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and Advocatus Law LLP for the respondents.
[2024] SGHC 164 explained
THREE ARROWS CAPITAL LTD & 2 Ors v KYLE LIVINGSTON DAVIES & Anor ([2024] SGHC 164) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 28 June 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2024] SGHC 164 about?
THREE ARROWS CAPITAL LTD & 2 Ors v KYLE LIVINGSTON DAVIES & Anor ([2024] SGHC 164) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions — Whether threshold of good arguable case has been met by joint liquidators seeking freezing order”, “Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions — Whether joint liquidators applying for freezing order demonstrated real risk of dissipation of assets by subject of freezing order”, and “Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions — Whether joint liquidators applying for freezing order without notice complied with duty to give full and frank disclosure of material information”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 164 consider?
The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The joint liquidators of Three Arrows Capital Ltd, a British Virgin Islands hedge fund that traded cryptocurrencies and was placed into liquidation in 2022, obtained a without-notice interim freezing order in the General Division of the High Court against the company's co-founder Kyle Livingston Davies and his wife, Kelly Kaili Chen, in support of BVI proceedings in which a worldwide freezing order had been granted. Ms Chen applied to discharge the order, raising whether the liquidators had shown a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and given full and frank disclosure. Philip Jeyaretnam J dismissed Ms Chen's discharge application and her related stay application and awarded costs to the liquidators.
What was the Three Arrows Capital freezing order case [2024] SGHC 164 about?
Decided 28 June 2024 by Philip Jeyaretnam J, the joint liquidators of Three Arrows Capital Ltd sought an interim freezing order against co-founder Kyle Livingston Davies and his wife Kelly Kaili Chen, made without notice in support of BVI proceedings where a worldwide freezing order had been granted.
What issues did the court consider in Three Arrows Capital v Davies [2024] SGHC 164?
The catchwords identify three Mareva injunction issues: whether the joint liquidators met the good arguable case threshold, whether they showed a real risk of dissipation of assets, and whether they complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure on the without-notice application.
Who were the parties in Three Arrows Capital Ltd v Davies [2024] SGHC 164?
The applicants were Three Arrows Capital Ltd and its joint liquidators Christopher Farmer and Russell Crumpler. The respondents were Kyle Livingston Davies, the BVI-incorporated company's co-founder, and his wife Kelly Kaili Chen, alleged to hold assets as his nominee.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 164)