OREXIM TRADING LIMITED v MAHAVIR PORT AND TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED & 2 Ors

[2024] SGHC 190 High Court (General Division) 23 July 2024 HC/S 443/2020 ( HC/SUM 1325/2024 ) 26 min read

8 cases cited (7 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	23 July 2024
Judge	Kwek Mean Luck
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Oon & Bazul LLP, Wee Swee Teow LLP, Hui Choon Wai, Luke Chew, Yuen Zi Gui

Source: [2024] SGHC 190, High Court (General Division), decided 23 July 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure – Striking out – Defendants deliberately and persistently failing to comply with court orders – Whether striking out of defence justified Civil Procedure – Mareva injunctions – Whether plaintiff under obligation to restore asset dissipated in breach of Mareva injunction – Value of assets to be restored to asset pool

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (5)

Oon & Bazul LLP Firm Wee Swee Teow LLP Firm Hui Choon Wai Counsel Plaintiff Luke Chew Counsel Plaintiff Yuen Zi Gui Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited Defendant Orexim Trading Limited Plaintiff Singmalloyd Marine (S) Pte Ltd Defendant Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited Defendant

Case Significance

Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 190 was a grounds of decision of the General Division of the High Court delivered by Kwek Mean Luck J on 23 July 2024, in Suit No 443 of 2020 and Summons No 1325 of 2024. The plaintiff was Orexim Trading Limited and the defendants were Mahavir Port and Terminal Private Limited (formerly Fourcee Port and Terminal Private Limited), Singmalloyd Marine (S) Pte Ltd, and Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited ("Zen").

The case arose from Zen knowingly disposing of two vessels in breach of a Mareva injunction. Zen had earlier been found in contempt of court for disposing of one vessel and had not complied with the sentences imposed for that contempt, before proceeding to dispose of the other vessel. Kwek Mean Luck J granted Orexim's application for orders to restore the vessels or their equivalent value to the asset pool, and for Zen's defence to be struck out unless it complied with the restoration orders. The judgment addressed whether a plaintiff is under an obligation to restore an asset dissipated in breach of a Mareva injunction, the value of assets to be restored, and whether striking out the defence was justified given deliberate and persistent non-compliance with court orders. The plaintiff was represented by Wee Swee Teow LLP and the defendant by Oon & Bazul LLP.

[2024] SGHC 190 explained

OREXIM TRADING LIMITED v MAHAVIR PORT AND TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 190) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 23 July 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 190 about?

OREXIM TRADING LIMITED v MAHAVIR PORT AND TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED & 2 Ors ([2024] SGHC 190) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure – Striking out – Defendants deliberately and persistently failing to comply with court orders – Whether striking out of defence justified” and “Civil Procedure – Mareva injunctions – Whether plaintiff under obligation to restore asset dissipated in breach of Mareva injunction – Value of assets to be restored to asset pool”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC 190 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 65. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 190?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 190 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Orexim Trading Limited, a judgment creditor, sought orders against Zen Shipping and Ports India Private Limited requiring the restoration of two vessels, or their equivalent value, to an asset pool after Zen disposed of the vessels in breach of a Mareva injunction, having already been found in contempt for disposing of one of them. The case addressed whether such restoration could be ordered and whether striking out Zen's defence was justified given its persistent failure to comply with court orders. The General Division of the High Court granted the restoration orders, accompanied by an unless order that Zen's defence be struck out if it failed to comply, and awarded Orexim costs of $14,000 plus disbursements.

What happened in Orexim Trading Ltd v Mahavir Port and Terminal Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 190?

Kwek Mean Luck J found that Zen Shipping and Ports India had knowingly disposed of two vessels in breach of a Mareva injunction. The court ordered Zen to restore the vessels or their equivalent value, and struck out its defence unless it complied.

Why was Zen Shipping's defence struck out in the Orexim Trading case ([2024] SGHC 190)?

Zen Shipping had been found in contempt for disposing of one vessel, failed to comply with the sentences imposed, then disposed of a second vessel breaching the Mareva injunction. Kwek Mean Luck J struck out its defence unless it restored the vessels.