Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd v ph. AG & Anor

[2026] SGHC 65 High Court (General Division) 25 March 2026 • HC/OC 290/2025 ( HC/SUM 3235/2025,HC/SUM 3345/2025,HC/SUM 3248/2025 ) • 51 min read
21 cases cited (15 SG, 6 foreign)

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings Conflict of Laws — Choice of jurisdiction

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws

Judges (1)

Tan Siong Thye Delivered

Counsel (8)

RHTLaw Asia LLP Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Foo Hsien Weng Counsel Defendant Ho Li Xuan Rachel Counsel Plaintiff Kwong Yan Li Callie Counsel Plaintiff Lin Weiqi Wendy Counsel Defendant Sharon Chong Chin Yee Counsel Plaintiff Yap Zhan Ming Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd Plaintiff ph AG Defendant Pedro Schmidt Defendant

Case Significance

In Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd v ph. AG & Anor [2026] SGHC 65, the High Court General Division on 25 March 2026 set aside a worldwide Mareva injunction and stayed the underlying Singapore proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds. The claimant, Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd, had obtained the worldwide Mareva injunction (HC/ORC 2668/2025) and an ancillary disclosure order at an ex parte hearing on 14 May 2025 against ph. AG, a Swiss company, and its founder, chairperson and shareholder Pedro Schmidt. Tan Siong Thye SJ allowed ph. AG's and Schmidt's applications in HC/SUM 3235/2025 and HC/SUM 3248/2025, finding that Singapore was forum non conveniens and that parts of the dispute were subject to an arbitration clause. WongPartnership LLP appeared for the defendants and RHTLaw Asia LLP for Vanbo. The judgment, reserved after a 5 January 2026 hearing, cited 21 authorities including 15 Singapore decisions and 6 foreign cases.

Summary

Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd, a Singapore holding company, obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against Swiss company ph. AG and its founder Pedro Schmidt over an investment dispute, which the defendants applied to set aside along with a stay of proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens and an arbitration clause. The court found that Vanbo had failed to establish a real risk of asset dissipation or a good arguable case on the merits, and had made material non-disclosures at the ex parte hearing. The worldwide Mareva injunction was set aside, and proceedings were stayed in favour of Swiss courts for the shareholding and investment claims and ICC arbitration for the licensing claim.

Why did the High Court set aside the worldwide Mareva injunction against ph. AG in Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd v ph. AG [2026] SGHC 65?

Tan Siong Thye SJ allowed ph. AG's applications because Singapore was found to be forum non conveniens and parts of the dispute between Vanbo Investments and the Swiss company ph. AG and its founder Pedro Schmidt were subject to an arbitration clause, making the ex parte injunction of 14 May 2025 unsustainable.

What were the three interlocutory applications decided in Vanbo Investments Pte Ltd v ph. AG [2026] SGHC 65?

The High Court decided HC/SUM 3235/2025 (set aside the worldwide Mareva injunction), HC/SUM 3345/2025 (stay of ancillary disclosure order pending SUM 3235), and HC/SUM 3248/2025 (stay of OC 290 on forum non conveniens and arbitration-clause grounds), all resolved on 25 March 2026.

Cases Cited (21)

SLR (15)
[2003] 1 SLR(R) 157 [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 [2010] 1 SLR 391 [2014] 3 SLR 1217 [2015] 5 SLR 558 [2016] 1 SLR 373 [2018] 2 SLR 1271 [2018] 2 SLR 159 [2020] 2 SLR 1223 [2023] 1 SLR 1072 [2024] 2 SLR 279 [2025] 1 SLR 1191
UK (6)
[1984] 1 All ER 398 [1987] AC 460 [1988] 1 WLR 1350 [1989] 2 WLR 276 [2009] EWCA Civ 585 [2010] EWCA Civ 998

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 65)