LITT
Try LITT free
Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul and another v Suriaya bte Haja Mohideen [2025] SGHCR 33
The court has the inherent power to impose personal costs on advocates and solicitors who cite fictitious AI-generated authorities, as this constitutes improper, unreasonable, or negligent conduct that causes unnecessary costs to the counterparty.
Wesley Widjaja v Ng Wei San (alias Oei Wei San alias Wilson Hasan Widjaja) and others [2025] SGHCR 32
A party asserting legal professional privilege over documents ordered to be produced must provide sufficient factual basis on affidavit to establish the preconditions for the privilege, as a bare assertion is insufficient.
The “Hong Chang Sheng” [2025] SGHCR 31
The court held that consent orders are contractual in nature if they reflect a consensus ad idem, and the court has no residual discretion to interfere with such orders unless there are vitiating factors under contract law.
GLAS SAS (London Branch) v European TopSoho Sàrl and another [2025] SGHCR 29
A court has the discretionary power to lift a case management stay granted on the basis of lis alibi pendens when the basis for the stay has fallen away, provided the applicant provides cogent reasons and is not seeking to re-litigate the merits of the action.
Oro Negro Drilling Pte Ltd and others v Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro SAPI de CV and others [2025] SGHCR 28
An 'unless' order is warranted where a party intentionally fails to comply with court orders for interrogatories, and the justifications for non-compliance are collateral attacks on earlier court decisions.
Ng Zhi Liang v Voon Gie Min [2025] SGHCR 27
The court clarified the approach to interim payments under O 13 r 8 of the Rules of Court 2021, noting that the previous two-stage test under the 2014 Rules is no longer applicable, and that the court should instead undertake a holistic assessment of five factors to determine fai
Prosetskii, Aleksandr Viktorovich v Smirnov, Igor and others [2025] SGHCR 25
The court held that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a trust deed could not be relied upon to establish a nexus to Singapore for service out of jurisdiction where the existence of the trust deed itself was disputed and the claimant failed to establish a good arguable case that
Dynamic Oil Trading (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Deloitte & Touche LLP [2025] SGHCR 24
The court has the power under O 16 r 4(5) of the Rules of Court 2014 to vary procedural directions in a summons for third party directions, and will do so where the proceedings are inextricably linked and a combined trial is more efficient and avoids inconsistent findings.
Le Ninh Tien v Rainbow Forest Enterprises Ltd and others [2025] SGHCR 23
A claimant is not precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts on forum non conveniens grounds in respect of a counterclaim brought against him in the action he commenced, as a counterclaim is an independent action.
Fauzi bin Noh v Zulkepli bin Husain (MSIG Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, intervener) [2025] SGHCR 22
The court assessed damages for personal injuries, including pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of future earnings, and loss of earning capacity, while applying an inflationary uplift to the 2010 AD Guidelines.
Palyanitsa Ltd v Bridgetower Capital Ltd [2025] SGHCR 21
The court allowed amendments to the defence and dismissed the summary judgment application, finding that the defendant raised triable issues regarding agency and ownership of the digital tokens.
Chern Chye Keow and another v Roger Peter Ponniah (administrator of the estate of John Danaraj Ponniah, deceased) [2025] SGHCR 19
The court held that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for a dispute between estate beneficiaries and an administrator regarding the management of an estate, as the governing law of the dispute was Malaysia law and the relief sought involved land in Malaysia.
Armira Capital Ltd v Ji Zenghe and others [2025] SGHCR 18
The court held that while a contractual indemnity for costs is a highly relevant factor, it does not oust the court's discretion to assess costs for reasonableness and proportionality under the Rules of Court 2021.
National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Soh Keng Cheang Philip and another matter [2025] SGHCR 17
The court has a broad, discretionary power under s 7 of the IRDA to review, rescind or vary its own orders in insolvency proceedings, which should be exercised with caution and only in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a material change of circumstances or fresh e
Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA and others [2025] SGHCR 16
A judgment creditor seeking a second or further EJD order against the same examinee must demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting further questioning, and the duty of full and frank disclosure requires disclosure of material facts, though not necessarily every detail of t
Spackman Entertainment Group Ltd v Woo Sang Cheol [2025] SGHCR 14
The court clarified the principles governing the redaction of documents for irrelevance and the lifting of the Riddick undertaking in the context of civil litigation.
Re Chen Weiwen Kelvin (DBS Bank Ltd and another, non-parties) [2025] SGHCR 13
The court held that the sole test for insolvency under Part 14 of the IRDA is the cash flow test, and that a proposal for a voluntary arrangement must be serious and viable to warrant an interim order.
Vigar, Andrew v XL Insurance Company Se Singapore Branch [2025] SGHCR 12
The court held that an implied term in fact requiring an employer to comply with internal company policies is not necessary for business efficacy, and that broad implied duties of mutual trust and confidence do not extend to procedural requirements like promptness or thoroughness
DBS Bank Ltd v Li Yuan [2025] SGHCR 11
A debtor's request for more time to repay a debt does not constitute 'sufficient reason' under s 315(1) of the IRDA to stay bankruptcy proceedings, as it reinforces the debtor's inability to pay and confirms the bankruptcy application is properly maintained.
WTU v WTV [2025] SGHCF 8
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a District Judge's orders regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. The court found no errors in the lower court's exercise of discretion, affirming the original judgment in its entirety.
XBV v XBU [2025] SGHCF 7
The court held that an appeal against a subsequent clarification order that does not change the substantive effect of an earlier order is procedurally defective if the time to appeal the earlier order has expired.
XKG v XKF [2025] SGHCF 66
A donor lacks mental capacity to execute an LPA if they cannot understand, retain, and weigh information relevant to the decision, including the nature, purpose, and legal effect of the LPA and the consequences of granting authority to a donee.
XVI v XVJ and another [2025] SGHCF 65
In XVI v XVJ and another [2025] SGHCF 65 , the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) addressed the rigorous financial consequences attending a trustee’s failure to manage estate assets with due diligence. The dispute centered on the administration of a deceased’s e
XUW v XUX [2025] SGHCF 64
The court determined the division of matrimonial assets based on direct and indirect contributions, excluding pre-marital and gifted assets, and ordered the transfer of assets to the husband while refunding the wife's direct contribution.