LITT
Try LITT free
Public Prosecutor v Mark Kalaivanan s/o Tamilarasan [2025] SGCA 48
The court does not have the power to impose an additional term of imprisonment in place of caning where an offender is sentenced to preventive detention.
Mazzagatti, Francesco v Alliance Petrochemical Investment (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 46
The Court of Appeal held that the court has the discretionary power to allow a request to file a further affidavit in committal proceedings, and that the Ladd v Marshall test is not the applicable test for such requests.
DAN v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2025] SGCA 45
The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's sentence for culpable homicide should be enhanced to life imprisonment due to the egregious nature of the abuse, which included prolonged cruelty, the victim's extreme vulnerability, and the appellant's breach of parental trust.
Zin Mar New v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGCA 44
The case clarifies the application of the partial defence of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to s 300 of the Penal Code, specifically regarding the subjective and objective tests for loss of self-control.
Pannir Selvam Pranthaman v Attorney-General [2025] SGCA 43
The Court of Appeal held that the Ministry of Home Affairs' policy distinction between State-brought and non-State-brought proceedings in the context of scheduling executions is not unlawful, as it is based on legitimate public interest considerations and the principle of finalit
Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGCA 42
The lawful holder of a bill of lading acquires rights of suit under the contract of carriage by operation of law, and the subjective intention or belief of the holder regarding the bill as security is irrelevant to the acquisition of such rights.
Tay Lak Khoon v Tan Wei Cheong (as judicial manager of USP Group Ltd) and others [2025] SGCA 41
The court held that there was no due cause for the removal of judicial managers who reasonably relied on legal advice in a situation where the legal position was unsettled, as such reliance did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGCA 4
The court dismissed the applicant's motion for leave to review his conviction, finding that the grounds raised were either previously litigated or could have been raised earlier, and that the application was an abuse of process intended to delay execution.
CHJ v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGCA 38
The court held that the 'unusually convincing' standard of proof did not apply as the complainant's evidence was not the sole basis for conviction, and that two separate charges for sexual penetration were justified due to a break in the incident caused by an interruption.
Chandroo Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGCA 37
Permission to file a post-appeal application in a capital case will be refused where the applicant fails to adduce any new material or evidence that could not have been brought earlier, and where the alleged evidence is non-existent or futile.
Singapore Commodities Group Co, Pte Ltd v Founder Group (Hong Kong) Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] SGCA 35
The court held that a payment into court as security for a disputed debt pending arbitration is conditional upon the creditor establishing the debt in the arbitration. Where the arbitral tribunal makes no finding on the existence of the debt, the condition for payment out is not
Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) v European Topsoho Sàrl [2025] SGCA 32
The court held that proportionality does not apply to the enforcement of an unless order where there has been an intentional breach, and that the NYC does not prevent the enforcement of domestic procedural rules.
Zhu Su v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 31
The court held that s 244(1) of the IRDA does not require a person to be summoned to court before they can be required to produce documents, and that an examination order may be set aside if it is oppressive due to the liquidator's intention to sue the examinee.
Da Hui Shipping (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v An Rong Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation) (Societe Generale, Singapore Branch and another, non-parties) [2025] SGCA 30
A non-admiralty in personam action cannot be used to overreach into sale proceeds of vessels held in court under admiralty jurisdiction, as such proceeds are only available to claimants with judgments in rem.
CH Biovest Pte Ltd v Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2025] SGCA 3
The court held that payments made by a Ponzi scheme operator to investors in excess of their principal investment are not contractually owed profits but are non-contractual payments that can be avoided under insolvency avoidance provisions.
Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 29
The court held that the judicial managers did not dispose of the vessel as the judicial sale by the foreign court was not a disposal by them, and that a statutory lien created by the issuance of a writ in rem does not constitute a security interest under the IRDA.
East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28
The court held that the threshold requirement of 'trade mark use' (use as a badge of origin) remains a necessary prerequisite for trade mark infringement in Singapore, even in the context of internet advertising. The court rejected the 'effect-centric' approach derived from CJEU
Yit Chee Wah and another v Inner Mongolia Huomei-Hongjun Aluminium Electricity Co, Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGCA 27
The court held that in an application to expunge or reduce a proof of debt under r 133(1) of the CIR Rules, the liquidator must show a prima facie case that the proof was improperly admitted, and the court then determines the validity of the debt de novo with the creditor bearing
Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun [2025] SGCA 26
The court held that 'immediate compliance' with a court order under O 17 r 2(3) of the ROC 2021 is subject to a standard of reasonableness, and that a contemnor's conduct must be viewed as a continuum to determine if there was an intentional breach.
Lun Yaodong Clarence v Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP [2025] SGCA 25
The court held that a dispute over the validity of a retainer agreement (LOE) is not an essential element of a solicitor-and-client costs assessment proceeding, and thus does not warrant a stay of the assessment proceedings in favour of arbitration.
Cao Pei v McCom Holding Ltd [2025] SGCA 24
An extension of time for filing a Notice of Appeal will not be granted where the delay is caused by a solicitor's elementary procedural errors and the intended appeal is hopeless.
DKT v DKU [2025] SGCA 23
An infra petita challenge requires showing that the tribunal completely failed to consider an essential issue, and that this failure caused actual prejudice. The court will not re-examine the merits or the adequacy of the tribunal's analysis.
GIL v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGCA 21
Section 116A(1) of the Evidence Act creates a presumption that an electronic record was accurately produced or communicated by a device or process, but does not create a presumption that the substantive content or data within that record is true or reliable.
Khoo Phaik Ean Patricia and another v Khoo Phaik Eng Katherine and others [2025] SGCA 20
The court held that bank documents, including survivorship clauses, are not dispositive of beneficial ownership unless they expressly declare such interests, and that the resulting trust analysis remains the primary framework for determining beneficial ownership in joint accounts