LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

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payments under O 13 r 8 of the Rules of Court 2021, noting that the previous two-stage test under the 2014 Rules is no longer applicable, and that the court should instead undertake a holistic assessment of five factors to determine fai

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Exchange Union Co and others v Wo Qi and others [2025] SGHCR 26

In Exchange Union Co v Wo Qi [2025] SGHCR 26, the court set aside service of court papers on a foreign company, ruling that the 'leaving' requirement under Order 7 r 2(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021 is strict and does not permit posting documents at a director's residential address.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

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

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

Goh Hui En Rebecca v IG Asia Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 20

In Goh Hui En Rebecca v IG Asia Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Abuse of Process — Henderson v Henderson doctrine, Civil Procedure — Striking out.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

L’Oreal and another v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 2

In L’Oreal v Shopee [2025] SGHCR 2, the court dismissed the application to lift the implied undertaking of confidentiality. It ruled that e-commerce disputes do not automatically override discovery protections, reinforcing the high threshold required to use disclosed documents for collateral purpose

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

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

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

WVD and others v WUR and others [2025] SGHCF 46

The High Court has the inherent power to order the payment of costs in instalments, even in the absence of express statutory provision.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Avra International DMCC v Dava Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 53

In Avra International DMCC v Dava Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Appeals, Civil Procedure — Extension of time.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

POP Holdings Pte Ltd v Teo Ban Lim and others [2025] SGCA 51

The Transaction Date Rule is a second-order rule applicable only when the Valuation Method is employed; if the Valuation Method is inapposite, the court may assess loss directly without reference to a specific date.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd v Jonathan John Shipping Ltd [2025] SGCA 36

In Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd v Jonathan John Shipping Ltd, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

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

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

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.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2025] SGCA 12

An appellate court should generally not entertain a challenge to the official record of the hearing below unless the issue has been ventilated before the court or judge below.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

CIX v DGN [2025] SGCA 10

The extended doctrine of res judicata (Henderson v Henderson) applies to bar fresh claims that could and ought to have been raised in prior arbitration proceedings, even where the defendant in the subsequent court action was not a party to the arbitration.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read