ROMY INGRID CASTEL & 2 Ors v INVESTMENT BEVERAGE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. & 5 Ors
Outcome
Application allowed“I allowed the application of the Claimants to file these further affidavits in support of their submission.”
Source: [2026] SGHC 158, High Court (General Division), decided 30 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 27 July–2 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Siong Thye |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Outcome | Application allowed |
| Counsel | Covenant Chambers LLC, Drew & Napier LLC, Nair, Jen & Tan LLC, Omni Law LLC, PRP Law LLC, TSMP Law Corporation, Ang Kai Le, Chin Tian Hui Joshua, Deepika Padman, Dilys Chuah, Goh Sher Hwyn Rebecca, Hing Shan Shan Blossom, Joshua Goh Zemin, Joshua Phang Shih Ern, Lim Si Cheng, Nair Suresh Sukumaran, Oommen Mathew, Pillai Pradeep G, Rashpal Singh Sidhu, Ronald Wong Jian Jie, See Wern Hao, Tan Jia Jun, James, Tan Tse Hsien Bryan, Thio Shen Yi, Wong Yong Min |
Source: [2026] SGHC 158, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (25)
Parties (9)
Case Significance
Castel, Romy Ingrid and others v Investment Beverage Business Management Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHC 158 is a decision of the General Division of the High Court by Tan Siong Thye SJ, dated 30 July 2026. The claimants, holding 72.33% of the shares in Investment Beverage Business Management Pte Ltd (IBBM), obtained ex parte prohibitory injunctions restraining the second and sixth defendants from acting as directors of IBBM, after extraordinary general meetings called to remove them. In HC/SUM 653/2026 the defendants sought to set aside the injunctions for lack of full and frank disclosure. The issue was whether the allegedly undisclosed matters, such as letters from Pierre Castel and the circumstances of a general power of attorney, were material to the ex parte hearing. The court held none cleared the threshold of materiality and dismissed the application, then turned to costs.
[2026] SGHC 158 explained
ROMY INGRID CASTEL & 2 Ors v INVESTMENT BEVERAGE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. & 5 Ors ([2026] SGHC 158) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 July 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 [2026] SGHC 158 about?
ROMY INGRID CASTEL & 2 Ors v INVESTMENT BEVERAGE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. & 5 Ors ([2026] SGHC 158) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Interim orders — Setting aside of prohibitory injunction on the basis of lack of full and frank disclosure”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 158 consider?
The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50) and Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 158 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGCA 46. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2026] SGHC 158?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGHC 158 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard an application by the second and sixth defendants to set aside prohibitory injunctions granted ex parte to three shareholders of Investment Beverage Business Management Pte Ltd, which restrained the defendants from acting as its directors after extraordinary general meetings to remove them. The defendants argued the claimants had not made full and frank disclosure. Tan Siong Thye SJ held that none of the allegedly undisclosed matters, including letters from Pierre Castel and the circumstances of a general power of attorney, was material, and dismissed HC/SUM 653/2026.
What was Castel v Investment Beverage Business Management [2026] SGHC 158 about?
The second and sixth defendants applied to set aside ex parte injunctions stopping them from acting as directors of Investment Beverage Business Management Pte Ltd, alleging the claimants failed to give full and frank disclosure. The General Division of the High Court dismissed the application.
Did the court set aside the injunctions for non-disclosure in [2026] SGHC 158?
No. Tan Siong Thye SJ found the Defendants had not shown a failure of full and frank disclosure, because none of the allegedly undisclosed matters, including the letters from Pierre Castel and the circumstances of the power of attorney, was material. HC/SUM 653/2026 was dismissed.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (7)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 158)