Injunctions are powerful legal tools used in Singapore to prevent a party from taking a specific action or to compel a party to perform a specific act. Just recently, a high-profile case involving injunctions in Singapore is Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29. In this case, Shopee sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent a former employee from joining a competitor and soliciting clients and employees.
The Singapore High Court denied the injunction application, finding that Shopee had not established a serious case to be tried and that the restraint of trade clauses in the employment contract was not enforceable. This case highlights the importance of careful drafting of employment contracts and the challenges in enforcing restrictive covenants.
An injunction, also known as an “interdict” in some jurisdictions, is a court order that compels or prohibits a specific course of action. In Singapore, injunctions are a form of equitable remedy, meaning they are granted at the court’s discretion based on principles of fairness and justice.
These are the types of injunctions in Singapore:
These require a party to perform a specific act, such as rectifying damage or fulfilling a contractual obligation. They are typically granted in cases where inaction could cause significant harm.
These prevent a party from performing certain acts, such as breaching a contract or disclosing confidential information. Prohibitory injunctions are commonly used to maintain the status quo.
These are temporary injunctions granted before a trial to preserve the rights of the parties involved until the final judgment is made.
Issued to prevent anticipated harm that has not yet occurred but is likely to happen if no action is taken. These injunctions rely on the plaintiff proving a real and imminent threat.
Granted after a full trial, these injunctions are permanent and enforce rights conclusively.
A specific type of injunction allowing the plaintiff to enter the defendant’s premises to inspect and seize evidence that might otherwise be destroyed.
These freeze a defendant’s assets to prevent them from being moved out of jurisdiction or dissipated before a court judgment.
H3: 8. Restraining Orders
Often used in family law or harassment cases, these injunctions prohibit certain behaviors to ensure safety or compliance.
While injunctions can be a powerful tool, seeking one requires careful consideration and strategic planning. Here are some common mistakes to avoid:
Injunction applications are complex legal matters. Engaging a skilled and experienced lawyer can significantly improve your chances of success. A lawyer can help you:
Injunctions can be a valuable tool for protecting your rights and interests in Singapore. However, avoiding common mistakes is crucial for a successful application. By working with a skilled legal team at PDLegal Singapore, you can ensure your application is well-drafted, supported by strong evidence, and presented effectively in court.
Contact PDLegal Singapore today for a consultation to discuss your specific situation and explore the possibility of seeking an injunction.
The test includes three elements: (1) a serious question to be tried, (2) proof of irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by damages, and (3) the balance of convenience favoring the granting of the injunction. These ensure fairness before a full trial.
To obtain an injunction, file an application with supporting affidavits in court detailing the grounds, evidence of harm, and the relief sought. A hearing is held during which the court assesses if the criteria for granting an injunction are met.
The main purpose of an injunction is to compel or restrain specific actions to prevent harm or injustice, preserving the rights of the parties until a legal resolution is reached.
An injunction may be denied if damages can adequately compensate the harm, if it causes undue hardship, or if the plaintiff has unclean hands (i.e., acted unfairly or in bad faith). Lack of urgency or public interest concerns may also justify denial.
To prove irreparable harm, show that the injury is substantial, imminent, and cannot be adequately remedied by monetary compensation. This often involves demonstrating a threat to unique assets, rights, or business reputation.
The applicant must establish (1) a prima facie case, (2) irreparable harm, and (3) that the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction. Additionally, compliance with procedural rules is essential.
A serious question to be tried arises when the claim is not frivolous or vexatious, meaning it has a reasonable prospect of success based on preliminary evidence and legal arguments.
In Singapore, the High Court or State Courts can grant a preliminary injunction upon the applicant’s demonstration that the legal criteria are satisfied.
Grounds include preventing irreparable harm, maintaining the status quo, and avoiding injustice while the case is resolved. The applicant must also show urgency and a likelihood of success.
Rule 58 generally governs procedures and requirements for issuing preliminary injunctions, focusing on evidence of harm, proper notice to parties, and compliance with procedural safeguards. (Note: Specifics depend on jurisdiction.)
A mandatory injunction compels a party to perform a specific act, often to reverse or remedy a prior wrongful act. It is issued in exceptional cases where other remedies are inadequate.
An injunction may be dissolved if it was improperly granted, circumstances change significantly, or the plaintiff fails to proceed with the case diligently. Abuse of process or undue hardship to the defendant are also valid grounds.
Rule 65 governs restraining orders and injunctions, specifying procedures for application, notice, and compliance. It ensures equitable relief while safeguarding the rights of all parties. (Jurisdiction-specific details vary.)
Rule 57 typically outlines procedures for attaching a defendant’s assets to secure potential judgments. It requires a strong prima facie case and proof that the attachment is necessary to protect the plaintiff’s interests.
PDLegal LLC is pleased to announce that Managing Partner, Peter Doraisamy, has been recognised and ranked by Chambers & Partners (Asia Pacific 2023 for Shipping: Domestic: Litigation). The following quotes appear with Peter’s ranking: –
“Peter Doraisamy of PDLegal in Singapore is a noted shipping lawyer in the market. He handles a wide range of disputes, including ship grounding, cargo and fraud-related cases” – Chambers & Partners – Asia Pacific 2023
“He is excellent in litigation. He has very good control of the case, collecting the right evidence and putting this into a very successful trial.” – Shipping Litigation Client
Chambers and Partners is the leading independent professional legal research company operating across 200 jurisdictions. Chambers and Partners delivers detailed rankings and insights into the world’s leading lawyers and law firms.
This ranking is a testimony to the expertise and experience of the Firm’s shipping practice and would not be possible without the support of our clients and friends.
View All AwardsWhether you're seeking advice, representation, or have general inquiries, we're here to help. if you would like to speak to us for more information, please contact our client services team who will be happy to assist.
PDLegal LLC Advocates & Solicitors 1 Coleman Street #08-02 The Adelphi Singapore 179803
(65) 6220 0392
Mon - Fri : 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Sat : 8:30 am - 12:00 pm