Nam & Lien

In *Nam & Lien*, the applicant sought various interlocutory orders, including an injunction to restrain the respondents from dealing with certain real property, and an anti-suit injunction concerning proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. The first respondent also sought orders for the exclusive use and occupation of a property registered in the applicant's sole name and an injunction restraining the applicant from dealing with that property.

The Court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for the preservation of property against the respondents, and whether an anti-suit injunction was warranted in relation to foreign proceedings. Additionally, the Court had to consider the first respondent's application for exclusive use and occupation of a property and an injunction against the applicant dealing with it, assessing the respective vulnerabilities and past conduct of the parties.

Regarding the application against the respondents, the Court found that the evidence concerning the second respondent did not establish a prima facie case. While a prima facie case was established for a property settlement with respect to the first respondent, the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of the injunctions sought by the applicant. The application for an anti-suit injunction was also dismissed, as the evidence did not support its grant and it was not necessary for the protection of the Court's processes. In relation to the first respondent's application, the Court noted the first respondent's age and vulnerability to COVID-19, and the applicant's prior disposal of property without notice. The Court ordered that the first respondent would have exclusive use and occupation of the property, and the applicant would be restrained from dealing with it.