Back to Insights listing

Civil fraud and asset recovery, Commercial disputes, Company lawWednesday 21 February 2024

Lim and others v Ong

The Defendant was sentenced yesterday to 22 months immediate imprisonment in respect of a vast array of contempts of court, including dealing and dissipating assets in breach of a worldwide freezing order, providing inaccurate ancillary asset disclosure inflating his true asset position, providing false affidavit evidence seeking to justify dissipation, and 59 breaches of the standard form weekly living allowance.

The underlying claim pertained to a property investment fraud perpetrated by the first defendant, and orchestrated through a group of companies (some, but not all of which, were defendants to the proceedings). The defendants were the subject of a wide ranging worldwide freezing order and other injunctions including a quia timet injunction with respect to directorships of certain SPVs.  Aspects of those injunctions were themselves the subject of dispute and were challenged unsuccessfully  (Lim v Ong [2021] EWHC 3414 (Ch)).

The claimants were successful at trial (Lim v Ong [2023] EWHC 321 (Ch)) and thereafter sought to enforce their judgment in England and Singapore. Significant asset dissipation was discovered, and untruthful affidavit evidence was filed by the defendant designed to mislead the claimants. In particular, it became apparent that the defendant had both substantially overstated his assets at the outset of the litigation, and dissipated some of what remained.

The contempt application to commit the defendant alleged 83 separate contempts (falling into 7 broad categories), the sheer scale of the disregard for court orders being highly material (and justifying, in this particular case, extensive and detailed pleadings).  A late admission by the defendant resulted in a 2 month reduction from what would otherwise have been a 24 month custodial sentence.

James Bailey KC and James Goodwin were instructed by Withers and acted for the four successful claimants.

Read the full judgment

People to view:

Share by: Email

Related Insights View all thought leadership

  1. Placeholder

    Events / Webinars

    Wilberforce Civil Fraud Conference 2025

    Wednesday 2 July | 12.30pm - 6pm, followed by drinks and canapés
    The Langham, London

    View more
  2. Placeholder

    Articles

    Case note on UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC

    Andreas Giannakopoulos has written a case note on UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30 which has recently been published in the Law Quarterly Review. The note examines the Supreme Court’s judgment in detail, including its indication that forum conveniens principles do not apply... Read more

    By Andreas Giannakopoulos
    Tuesday 29 April 2025

    View more
  3. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Judgment handed down in Titanium Capital Investments Limited v Jonathan Hughes [2025] EWHC 682 (Ch)

    Commercial disputes, Civil fraud and asset recovery, Company law, Joint venture and partnership disputes

    Alan Gourgey KC | Lexa Hilliard KC
    Thursday 3 April 2025

    View more
  4. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Court of Appeal clarifies law relating to “half-secret” commissions in the energy supply market

    Commercial disputes

    Thomas Grant KC
    Monday 31 March 2025

    View more

View all thought leadership