Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor
Key facts
| Court | Singapore International Commercial Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Philip Jeyaretnam |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Setia Law LLC, Ong Tun Wei Danny, Teo Jason, Zhang Haowei Elvis |
Source: [2025] SGHC(I) 3, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHC(I) 3 is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision dated 14 February 2025 concerning Civil Procedure, specifically addressing mareva injunctions. 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. The judgment cites 2 cases (1 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 3 statutory provisions, including the Arbitration Act, the International Arbitration Act, and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
[2025] SGHC(I) 3 explained
Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor ([2025] SGHC(I) 3) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 14 February 2025. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. 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) 3 about?
Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor ([2025] SGHC(I) 3) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions — Claimant making ex parte application for worldwide Mareva injunction in support of New York-seated arbitration –– Whether appropriate to grant worldwide Mareva injunction – Section 12A International Arbitration Act 1994”, 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) 3 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), International Arbitration Act (Cap 10), and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Novo Nordisk obtained an ex parte worldwide freezing order against KBP Biosciences and its founder Dr Huang Zhenhua in support of a planned New York-seated ICC arbitration claiming US$830 million in damages for alleged fraud in the acquisition of the drug Ocedurenone. The SICC granted the injunction under s 12A of the International Arbitration Act, finding a good arguable case of fraud, a real risk of dissipation, and that no arbitral tribunal had yet been constituted to address the matter.
What was decided in [2025] SGHC(I) 3?
[2025] SGHC(I) 3 (Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd. & Anor) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 14 February 2025 addressing Civil Procedure, specifically mareva injunctions. 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) 3)?
The claimant in [2025] SGHC(I) 3 was Novo Nordisk A/S, and the defendant was KBP Biosciences Pte. Ltd., Huang Zhenhua. Legal representation included Setia Law LLC. The case was decided on 14 February 2025 in the Singapore International Commercial Court.
Which judge decided [2025] SGHC(I) 3?
[2025] SGHC(I) 3 was delivered by Philip Jeyaretnam in the Singapore International Commercial Court on 14 February 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC(I) 3 cite?
[2025] SGHC(I) 3 cites 2 prior decisions, including 1 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Arbitration Act, International Arbitration Act, Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (2)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC(I) 3)