I. INTRODUCTION
In the recent case of YFF v YFG and another (First Non-Party and another, non-parties) [2026] SGHCF 20, the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) (“SGHCF”) considered whether an injunction order obtained by the Claimant to prevent the Defendants as executors of the estate from dealing with the assets of the deceased’s estate prevented a Purchaser and a Bank as mortgagee from registering their respective interests arising from a sale of a property from the deceased’s estate by the executors, which sale contract had been entered into before the injunction order was obtained and completed only after the date of the injunction order.
The SGHCF held that the injunction order did not prevent the Purchaser and the Bank from registering their respective interests.
Director P. Sivakumar successfully represented the Bank in this matter.
II. BRIEF FACTS
The Claimant was the lawful widow of the deceased, who was the owner of the property. The Defendants were executors of the deceased’s estate.
The Claimant made a without notice application for an injunction on 26 November 2025 prohibiting the Defendants from disposing of or dealing with the estate assets, including a landed property. The injunction order was granted on 1 December 2025.
However, prior to the injunction application, a third-party purchaser had already exercised an option to purchase the landed property on 10 September 2025 and lodged a purchaser’s caveat on 12 September 2025. Following the Purchaser’s caveat, the Bank, from which the Purchaser has obtained a mortgage loan, lodged its caveat on 7 October 2025.
The completion of the sale of the property took place on 3 December 2025. It was only when the Bank proceeded to register its instrument of mortgage, was it made aware by the Singapore Land Authority that it was unable to register its instrument of mortgage due to the injunction order.
The Purchaser and the Bank subsequently applied to vary the injunction order to permit registration of their respective interests.
III. DECISION
The General Division of the High Court (Family Division) found that:
- The injunction order only operated against the Defendants personally: The injunction order did not restrain the Singapore Land Authority, the Purchaser (or any purchasers of any assets of the deceased’s estate), or the Bank from registering their rights.
- The injunction order was crafted with sufficient flexibility: The court at the time when the injunction order was heard ensured that the injunction order covered both possibilities:(i) properties that had not been sold; and (ii) properties that had been sold.
- The focus of the injunction order shifted from preserving the property itself to preserving the sale proceeds received by the executors: The Injunction Order had a mandatory order, in which, the Court ordered the Defendants to furnish a full and complete account of the whereabouts of the deceased’s assets and/or their proceeds [of sale] thereof pending the resolution of the claims. The court made it clear that the mandatory order for disclosure was to facilitate the tracing of the sales proceeds in the hands of the Defendant or their agents.
- The material non-disclosure during the injunction application: The court found that at the time when the injunction order was heard, the Claimant failed to inform the court that there were (2) two caveats lodged on the landed property despite having a title search done on the landed property on 13 November 2025 prior to filing the injunction application.
IV. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
An injunction is to be used as a shield and not as a weapon. This decision serves as an essential reminder that an injunction order must be rigorously scrutinised rather than treated as a broad, unassailable bar to commercial transactions. Such scrutiny will ensure that innocent non-parties are not prejudiced. This is clear when the court clarified the injunction order that it had made and noted that there was no need to vary or limit the injunction order it had granted, as the injunction order was clear that neither the Purchaser nor the Bank were restrained or prohibited from registering their respective interests.
Further, the decision also serves as a timely reminder of the trite duty on an applicant for an ex parte injunction to make full and frank disclosure before a court and to ensure that any material non-disclosure does not prejudice innocent non-parties. This was clear when the court highlighted that if the full and frank disclosure of the two (2) caveats had been made, the court may have inquired further.
For any related enquiries, please feel free to contact us.
This article is produced by BR Law Corporation. It does not constitute legal advice and is intended to provide general information only.
Reference Materials:
The judgement is available on the Singapore Courts website.
