Facts
In 2016, various accounts were opened in the name of [B.] (the respondent) at [C.] Ltd. in Singapore, including a USD account. [E.] , [B.] 's then-husband, deposited larger sums of money into this account, which [B.] then also used. On October 8, 2018, a withdrawal of USD 2 million was made in favor of [E.] . This resulted in a negative balance of USD 1,783,190.05. The claim was later assigned to [G.] in Lithuania.
On January 25, 2022, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (HCRS) ordered [B.] to settle the negative balance. On April 25, 2023, [A.] AB (the appellant) filed a request for an attachment order with the Cantonal Court of Zug to secure the enforcement of this decision. The single judge then issued an attachment order.
[B.] filed an objection to the attachment order. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zug upheld the appeal and revoked the attachment order. It justified this by stating that the appellant was unable to credibly demonstrate that [B.] had agreed to the jurisdiction clause contained in the account opening at [C.] Ltd.
Considerations
The Federal Court revokes the decision of the Higher Court and remands the case for reassessment to the lower instance. It considers the considerations of the Higher Court to be arbitrary, as it excluded the possibility that [B.] concluded the jurisdiction clause through the rules of agency, in particular through subsequent approval.
The Higher Court had not addressed the question of…