[2000] SGHC 5

“ortunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others [2005] 3 SLR(R) 60 (“OCM Opportunities Fund”) and Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 (“Precious Wishes”) exemplify that approach, as the defendants in those cases were sentenced to six months”

“ctical effect. In coming to the decision, the High Court examined precedents where a custodial sentence was found appropriate, including Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 (a three-month custodial sentence was imposed for deliberate disregard of a Mareva injunction and where th”

“cognisance of their deliberate disobedience of the orders which continued even after a permanent injunction was obtained. Similarly, in Precious Wishes Ltd v Sinoble Mettaloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5, Judith Prakash J, as she then was, emphasised the contemnor’s deliberate disregard for a Mareva injunction”

“ted the cases referred to at [62] [66] and [67] above as well as Maruti Shipping Pte Ltd v Tay Sien Djim and others [2014] SGHC 227, Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5, Technigroup Far East Pte Ltd and another v v Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh and others [2018] 3 SLR”

“(b) Precious Wishes Limited v Sinoble Metalloy International (Pte) Ltd [2000] SGHC 5 (“Precious Wishes”), in which three months’ imprisonment was imposed for the withdrawal of $150,000 from the company’s account in breach of a Mareva injunction without restitution: Precious Wishes at”