Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor

Q: Which legislation does [2025] SGHC(I) 22 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2025] SGHC(I) 22 Singapore International Commercial Court 12 August 2025 SIC/OA 3/2025 ( SIC/SUM 21/2025 ) 53 min read

9 cases cited (6 SG, 3 foreign)

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	12 August 2025
Judge	Philip Jeyaretnam
Charges / claim	Injunctions, Arbitration
Counsel	Drew & Napier LLC, Setia Law LLC, Belle Tan Ling Yi, Cavinder Bull, Gerald Paul Seah Yong Sing, Lee Jin Loong, Ong Tun Wei Danny, Tan Jui Yang Benedict, Tan Yuan Kheng (Chen Yuanqing), Teo Jason, Zhang Haowei Elvis

Source: [2025] SGHC(I) 22, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 12 August 2025 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Injunctions — Mareva injunction — Setting aside Arbitration — Injunction — Court’s powers under section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Injunctions Arbitration

Judges (1)

Philip Jeyaretnam Delivered

Counsel (11)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Setia Law LLC Firm Belle Tan Ling Yi Counsel Defendant Cavinder Bull Counsel Defendant Gerald Paul Seah Yong Sing Counsel Defendant Lee Jin Loong Counsel Claimant Ong Tun Wei Danny Counsel Claimant Tan Jui Yang Benedict Counsel Defendant Tan Yuan Kheng (Chen Yuanqing) Counsel Defendant Teo Jason Counsel Claimant Zhang Haowei Elvis Counsel Claimant

Parties (3)

KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. Defendant Novo Nordisk A/S Claimant Huang Zhenhua Defendant

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC(I) 22 is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision dated 12 August 2025 concerning Arbitration and Injunctions, specifically addressing mareva injunction and injunction. The judgment was delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam. The case was brought by Novo Nordisk A/S (claimant) against KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Setia Law LLC and Drew & Napier LLC. The judgment cites 9 cases (6 Singapore, 3 foreign) and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Arbitration Act and the International Arbitration Act.

[2025] SGHC(I) 22 explained

Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor ([2025] SGHC(I) 22) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 12 August 2025. It is categorised under Injunctions and Arbitration. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2025] SGHC(I) 22 about?

Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor ([2025] SGHC(I) 22) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Injunctions — Mareva injunction — Setting aside” and “Arbitration — Injunction — Court’s powers under section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (2020 Rev Ed)”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2025] SGHC(I) 22 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGHC(I) 22 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 154 and [2025] SGHC 34. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Novo Nordisk obtained an ex parte worldwide freezing order up to US$730 million against KBP Biosciences and its founder Dr Huang in support of a New York-seated arbitration alleging fraud in KBP's sale of the drug Ocedurenone. The defendants applied to set aside the freezing order. The SICC dismissed the setting aside application, finding a good arguable case of fraud and a real risk of dissipation, but varied the ancillary disclosure order to exclude assets worth less than US$10,000.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC(I) 22?

[2025] SGHC(I) 22 (Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 12 August 2025 addressing Arbitration and Injunctions, specifically mareva injunction and injunction. The judgment was delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam.

Who were the parties in Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor ([2025] SGHC(I) 22)?

The claimant in [2025] SGHC(I) 22 was Novo Nordisk A/S, and the defendant was KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd., Huang Zhenhua. Legal representation included Setia Law LLC and Drew & Napier LLC. The case was decided on 12 August 2025 in the Singapore International Commercial Court.

Which judge decided [2025] SGHC(I) 22?

[2025] SGHC(I) 22 was delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam in the Singapore International Commercial Court on 12 August 2025. The case concerned Arbitration and Injunctions.