ROMY INGRID CASTEL & 2 Ors v INVESTMENT BEVERAGE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. & 5 Ors
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 21–27 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Siong Thye |
| Charges / claim | Abuse of Process, Res judicata, Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Covenant Chambers LLC, Drew & Napier LLC, Nair Jen & Tan, Omni Law LLC, PRP Law LLC, TSMP Law Corporation, Alexander Kamsany Lee, Chin Tian Hui Joshua, Christabelle Arya Gerad, Claire Neoh Kai Xin, Dilys Chuah Qi Wei, Goh Sher Hwyn Rebecca, Goh Zemin Joshua, Hing Shan Shan Blossom, Joshua Phang Shih Ern, Lim Si Cheng, Muhammad Matin Bin Abdul Razak, Oommen Mathew, Pillai Pradeep G, Rajagopal Muralitharan, Rashpal Singh Sidhu, See Wern Hao, Thio Shen Yi, Wong Yong Min |
Source: [2026] SGHC 197, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (24)
Parties (9)
Case Significance
Castel, Romy Ingrid and others v Investment Beverage Business Management Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHC 197 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by Tan Siong Thye SJ on 25 September 2026, after a hearing on 14 September 2026. On 9 February 2026 the court granted interim prohibitory injunctions restraining the second and sixth defendants from acting as directors of IBBM, and its remaining directors later resigned, leaving a governance vacuum. The Defendants applied in SUM 2385 to set aside the injunctions for abuse of process or to vary them, while the Claimants applied in SUM 2549 for mandatory injunctions to give effect to the appointment of three New Directors. The court dismissed SUM 2385, finding it barred by the extended doctrine of res judicata, and allowed SUM 2549.
[2026] SGHC 197 explained
ROMY INGRID CASTEL & 2 Ors v INVESTMENT BEVERAGE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. & 5 Ors ([2026] SGHC 197) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 25 September 2026. It is categorised under Abuse of Process, Res judicata, and 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 [2026] SGHC 197 about?
ROMY INGRID CASTEL & 2 Ors v INVESTMENT BEVERAGE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. & 5 Ors ([2026] SGHC 197) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Abuse of Process — Collateral purpose”, “Res judicata — Extended doctrine of res judicata”, “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Interim injunctions — Variation”, and “Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Interim injunctions — Setting aside of prohibitory injunction on the basis of abuse of process”, 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 197 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 197 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 158. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court dismissed an application by two directors of Investment Beverage Business Management Pte Ltd to set aside interim prohibitory injunctions restraining them from acting as its directors, holding it barred by the extended doctrine of res judicata and an abuse of process. It also dismissed their alternative request for variation. The court allowed the claimants' application for mandatory injunctions requiring the third and fourth defendants to take steps to give effect to the appointment of three new directors, until further order or disposal of OA 166.
What was Castel v Investment Beverage Business Management [2026] SGHC 197 about?
It concerned a dispute over the board of Investment Beverage Business Management Pte Ltd, with applications to set aside or vary interim injunctions restraining two defendants from acting as directors, and for mandatory injunctions to appoint three New Directors.
What did the High Court decide in [2026] SGHC 197?
The court dismissed SUM 2385 in its entirety, holding it barred by the extended doctrine of res judicata and/or an abuse of process, and allowed SUM 2549 until any further order or after the disposal of OA 166.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (30)
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 197)