Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng

[2024] SGHC 182 High Court (General Division) 15 July 2024 • HC/OA 3/2024 ( HC/SUM 34/2024 ) • 81 min read
39 cases cited (21 SG, 18 foreign) Cited by 5 cases

Key facts

Court High Court (General Division)
Decided
Judge Aedit Abdullah
Charges / claim Civil Procedure, Insolvency Law
Counsel Tan, Oei & Oei LLC, Tham Lijing LLC, Oei Ai Hoea Anna, Tham Lijing

Source: [2024] SGHC 182, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (4)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng [2024] SGHC 182 was a decision of the General Division of the High Court delivered by Aedit Abdullah J on 15 July 2024, following hearings on 4 and 9 April and 9 May 2024 (Originating Application No 3 of 2024, Summons No 34 of 2024). The application was brought by Mr Farooq Ahmad Mann, in his capacity as the private trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Li Hua ("the Bankrupt"), seeking a Mareva and/or proprietary injunction against the respondent, Ms Xia Zheng. The injunction was sought in support of the private trustee's claim to avoid certain transfers of property from the Bankrupt to Ms Xia made in the lead-up to the Bankrupt's bankruptcy.

According to the catchwords and judgment opening, the trustee alleged that the transfers were transactions at an undervalue or fraudulent conveyances under s 361 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) and s 73B of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed). The catchwords frame the issues around the principles governing proprietary injunctions, the "real risk of dissipation" requirement and the applicability of the balance of convenience test to Mareva injunctions, and whether a transfer of property made pursuant to an ancillary relief order is capable of challenge as a transaction at an undervalue. Mr Tham Lijing of Tham Lijing LLC acted for the claimant, and Ms Oei Ai Hoea Anna of Tan, Oei & Oei LLC acted for the defendant.

[2024] SGHC 182 explained

Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng ([2024] SGHC 182) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 15 July 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Insolvency Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 5 other reported Singapore judgments, 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 182 about?

Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng ([2024] SGHC 182) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Proprietary injunctions — Principles”, “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Mareva injunctions — Principles — “Real risk of dissipation” requirement — Applicability of balance of convenience test to Mareva injunctions”, and “Insolvency Law — Avoidance of transactions — Transactions at an undervalue — Whether transfer of property pursuant to ancillary relief order capable of challenge as a transaction at an undervalue — Section 361 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed)”, 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 182 consider?

The judgment refers to Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20), Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61), English Insolvency Act, and Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC 182 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 46. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 182?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 182 has been cited by 5 later reported Singapore judgments. 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

Farooq Ahmad Mann, the private trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Li Hua, applied for a Mareva and/or proprietary injunction against Ms Xia Zheng to support a claim to avoid transfers of property made to her, on the grounds that they were transactions at an undervalue or fraudulent conveyances; the properties had been transferred to Ms Xia following an interim divorce judgment by consent before the bankruptcy. The case raised a novel conflict between the matrimonial and insolvency jurisdictions, namely whether an ancillary relief order dividing matrimonial property could later be challenged under insolvency avoidance provisions. The General Division of the High Court allowed the application and granted a worldwide Mareva injunction, affirming its decision after further arguments.

What was Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng [2024] SGHC 182 about?

It was a High Court application by Farooq Ahmad Mann, private trustee in bankruptcy of Li Hua, for a Mareva and/or proprietary injunction against Xia Zheng, supporting his claim to avoid property transfers from the Bankrupt as transactions at an undervalue or fraudulent conveyances.

Which statutes were at issue in Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng ([2024] SGHC 182)?

The trustee's avoidance claim relied on section 361 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) for transactions at an undervalue, and section 73B of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) for fraudulent conveyances, per the judgment.

Who decided Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng [2024] SGHC 182?

Aedit Abdullah J of the General Division of the High Court of Singapore decided the matter, delivering the grounds of decision on 15 July 2024 after hearings on 4 and 9 April and 9 May 2024 in Originating Application No 3 of 2024 (Summons No 34 of 2024).

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (39)

SG (3)
[2021] SGHC 129 [2022] SGHC 124 [2024] SGHC 46
SLR (18)
[1992] 2 SLR(R) 1 [1998] 1 SLR(R) 287 [1999] 1 SLR(R) 252 [2003] 1 SLR(R) 157 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 [2009] 2 SLR(R) 961 [2010] 4 SLR 801 [2011] 4 SLR 1169 [2013] 2 SLR 297 [2013] 2 SLR 449 [2015] 5 SLR 558 [2017] 2 SLR 997 [2018] 2 SLR 159 [2020] 2 SLR 490 [2021] 1 SLR 451 [2021] 5 SLR 1308 [2023] 1 SLR 1072 [2024] 3 SLR 1457
UK (15)
[1897] 2 Ch 534 [1975] AC 396 [1980] AC 546 [1990] 1 Ch 65 [1990] Ch 48 [1993] 1 WLR 224 [2008] Ch 412 [2015] 1 WLR 2309 [2016] AC 871 [2016] EWHC 1913 [2018] Ch 297 [2020] EWCA Civ 999 [2022] AC 461 [2023] AC 389 [2024] 1 WLR 1207
MY (3)
[2021] 4 CLJ 446 [2021] 7 MLJ 178 [2022] 7 CLJ 505

Cited By (5)

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 182)