Read the full judgment text of FCMC 5240/2011 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 8 January 2013 before Deputy District Judge G. Own.
District Court – Matrimonial Causes – Discovery – Mareva Injunction – Confidentiality – Privilege – Dissipation of Assets – Costs – The Petitioner Wife sought specific discovery of settlement terms with the Bank of China and a Mareva injunction under Order 29 rule 1 of the Rules of the District Court. The Respondent Husband opposed discovery claiming confidentiality and opposed continuation of the injunction citing asset sales. The Court held that confidentiality is not a separate head of privilege and does not bar disclosure unless privilege is claimed. The Court found the Husband failed to prove privilege or public interest. Regarding the Mareva injunction, the Court applied principles from Shipman v. Shipman and MRW v. EWR, noting the matrimonial context requires a different approach than commercial law. The Court found a real risk of dissipation as the Husband sold three properties in Mainland China without consent, with discrepancies in sale dates and undervalued consideration. The net proceeds were undisclosed. The Court ordered the Mareva injunction continued until final determination of ancillary reliefs. The Husband was ordered to pay costs and a Certificate for Counsel was granted.
Legal issues: Confidentiality as bar to discovery · Continuation of Mareva Injunction
Outcome: Discovery order granted; Mareva injunction continued; Costs awarded to Petitioner
Cites 1 case