FORBES MONACO APAC v KAWAJIRI SEIJI

Facts

David Max Pierre Mezhrahid, who was not legally represented, registered the business name Forbes Monaco APAC with ACRA on 10 March 2025 under s 5 of the Business Names Registration Act 2014, listing Kawajiri Seiji as a partner. David admitted that the defendant did not know of or consent to that registration. David said the name stood for a Monaco société civile particulière called Forbes Monaco, constituted by a 2017 notarial deed, in which David held one share and the defendant held 1,499 shares.

On 11 September 2025, David caused Forbes Monaco APAC to sue the defendant in HC/OC 747/2025 for €93m. The claimant alleged that it was recorded as a founder of Forbes Private Bank Monaco SA (FPBM), that a receivable of €93m had crystallised in its favour, and that it was removed from FPBM's founders' register on or around 23 December 2020. On an ex parte application, the court granted a freezing order with an ancillary disclosure order on 19 September 2025 (ORC 5600), up to €124,913,014 plus S$350,000.

The defendant applied to stay the disclosure order (SUM 2841) and to set aside ORC 5600 (SUM 2992). Meanwhile David filed an ex parte receivership application (which he did not serve once it was directed to be heard inter partes) and later SUM 3072 seeking to shut the defendant out of the stay and setting-aside applications unless he filed a compliant affidavit of assets. On 10 November 2025, Tan Siong Thye SJ heard the three summonses; David did not attend in person, and a firm he had instructed for Forbes Monaco SCP was not permitted to argue for the claimant.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant had a good arguable case against the defendant
2. Whether there was a real risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets
3. Whether the claimant breached its duty of full and frank disclosure at the ex parte hearing
4. Whether the proceedings were an abuse of process and personal costs should be ordered against David

Holding

The court set aside the freezing order ORC 5600 and allowed SUM 2992, the defendant's setting-aside application. It made no order on SUM 2841 and dismissed SUM 3072. It ordered David personally to pay the defendant $30,000 in costs.

Reasoning

On the merits, the court found the claim utterly spurious. Registering a business under the BNRA created a new business entity distinct from Forbes Monaco SCP, so Forbes Monaco APAC had no standing, and in substance it looked more like David's sole proprietorship. There was no evidence that Forbes Monaco SCP was a partnership: under the 2017 Deed David had only limited administrative powers and no share in profits, making him more like an employee who held a share. Nor was there evidence that FPBM was a partnership or that Forbes Monaco SCP was its founder; unredacted documents showed another company held FPBM's shares. On David's own shareholding he could at most claim €62,000. The claim also failed the conditions in Order 56 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2021 for suing in a firm name.

On dissipation, the test in Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar v Accent Delight International Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 558 requires solid evidence, not bare assertions. David's allegations of dishonesty had no real bearing on dissipation, and the defendant had not moved assets despite threats of litigation dating back to 6 April 2022. The court rejected the defendant's argument, drawn from Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd v Jonathan John Shipping Ltd [2025] 1 SLR 1191, that actual dispositions are required.

On disclosure, the claimant failed to disclose the true value of the claim, its departure from the standard disclosure order in the practice directions, that its undertaking as to damages was illusory since the defendant held 99.93% of Forbes Monaco SCP's shares, the defendant's lack of consent to the registration, and David's campaign of harassment against the defendant. ORC 5600 would not have been made had these facts been known.

On abuse of process, applying CIX v DGN [2025] 1 SLR 272, the court found the claim was brought for a collateral purpose: delay of more than three years, an unduly wide order, and threatening messages sent after the defendant paid €40,000 for David to close Forbes Monaco SCP pointed to oppression. David had also misled the court and cited no less than nine fictitious authorities, which he blamed on a draft made with a generative-AI tool; the court found that excuse dishonest. As David was the claimant's alter ego and sole driving force, personal costs within the Costs Guidelines range were ordered against him.

From the judgment