LITTLITT Try LITT free
uae-difc

Rafid Gourmet v DIF Interior Decoration [2023] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Finality in Construction Disputes

When the DIFC Court shuts the door on post-judgment evidence, practitioners must reckon with the absolute finality of perfected orders.

Sushant Shukla· ·38 min read
Singapore

Neo San San Cecilia v Loh Soo Chuan [2026] SGHC 54

In Neo San San Cecilia v Loh Soo Chuan, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Loan agreement.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Kalen, Alexandru v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 31

In assessing damages for breach of contract involving volatile assets like cryptocurrencies, the valuation date is determined by the doctrine of mitigation, specifically when a claimant is reasonably expected to mitigate their losses.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

JWT Realty Pte Ltd and another v The Pod Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 30

A landlord who is statutorily liable for a Land Betterment Charge (LBC) can contractually shift the burden of payment to the tenant through tenancy agreement clauses requiring the tenant to procure necessary approvals and bear all associated costs and expenses.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

LinkChina Capital Pte Ltd v Sparrow Tech Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 29

The court held that the term 'enterprise value' in the engagement agreement should be objectively determined based on the financial terms of the share purchase agreement and the accounts of the target company, applying the formula: Equity Value + Total Debt – Cash.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Ng Eng Huat and another v Fleur Capital (S) Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHC 20

In Ng Eng Huat and another v Fleur Capital (S) Pte Ltd and others, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Misrepresentation.

Sushant Shukla· ·4 min read
Singapore

Kanan Packrisamy v Herbal Pharm Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHC 2

The High Court dismissed Kanan Packrisamy’s wrongful termination claim against Herbal Pharm but awarded him unpaid salary and bonuses. The court simultaneously upheld the defendants' counterclaims for misappropriated funds, ordering significant repayments from the claimant.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Xu Jasmine and another [2025] SGHC 86

The High Court dismissed Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd's claim, ruling property agents not liable for floor area discrepancies. The court emphasized that agents acted reasonably and highlighted the necessity for independent buyer due diligence regarding unique property features.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Che’som bte Abdullah v Qurratu Ain bte Mohamed Yusope [2025] SGHC 7

The court dismissed the claimant's application to set aside a property transfer, finding that the claimant failed to prove she did not understand the transaction or that her consent was vitiated by undue influence.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Pierre Andre Jacques Lorinet v Helu-Trans (S) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 66

In Pierre Andre Jacques Lorinet v Helu-Trans (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Limitation of Actions — Particular causes of action, Contract — Contractual terms.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

CROWN Construction Pte Ltd v UNIVEL Hospitality Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 64

In CROWN Construction v UNIVEL Hospitality [2025] SGHC 64, the High Court dismissed the claimant's breach of contract claim and upheld the defendant's counterclaim for wrongful termination, but awarded only nominal damages of $1 due to a failure to provide sufficient evidence of loss and mitigation.

Sushant Shukla· ·7 min read
Singapore

Valency International Pte Ltd v JSW International Tradecorp Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 50

The High Court dismissed Valency International’s claims against JSW and Oldendorff but ruled in its favour against Unicorn for USD2.69m regarding cargo release without bills of lading. The case clarifies legal thresholds for implied agreements and conspiracy to injure in shipping disputes.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Shipworks Engineering Pte Ltd and another v Sembcorp Marine Integrated Yard Pte Ltd and another and other suits [2025] SGHC 40

The court determined the quantum of damages owed between parties following a previous judgment, resolving disputes over timesheet validity, administrative charges, and specific work order claims.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 266

The Singapore High Court dismissed a claim regarding restraint of trade clauses, ruling them void and unenforceable. The court held that general sales training does not establish a legitimate proprietary interest necessary to justify such restrictions.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Arki-Tech International Pte Ltd v Rentak Tebrau Sdn Bhd [2025] SGHC 233

In Arki-Tech International Pte Ltd v Rentak Tebrau Sdn Bhd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Building and construction contracts, Contract — Contractual terms.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

See Jen Sen v Prudential Assurance Co Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2025] SGHC 223

The High Court dismissed both the Claimant's claim for AL-LTI Scheme payments and Prudential's counterclaim for breach of contract. The court ruled the Claimant failed to meet payment conditions but protected his right to whistleblow to the MAS without breaching his agency agreement.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Circles Life Asia Technology Pte Ltd v SearchAsia Consulting Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 207

An 'introduction' under a recruitment contract refers to the introduction of a candidate pursuant to a specific 'hiring cycle', and a fresh hiring cycle can commence when a recruitment agency is re-engaged to facilitate the employment of a candidate for a role previously consider

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Lai Kai Jin Michael v Maybank Securities Pte Ltd and another [2025] SGHC 206

The court held that the claimant was bound by the terms of the contract with the brokerage, which required him to review statements and dispute any discrepancies within 14 days. His failure to do so precluded him from disputing the accuracy of the documents, and he could not rely

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Tuffi (Pte) Ltd v Techkon Pte Ltd and another [2025] SGHC 201

The court held that the 2019 Agreement was for a fixed sum rather than a formula, and that the claimant failed to establish any implied term or common mistake warranting adjustment.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Kok Kuan Hwa v Yap Wing Sang [2025] SGHC 19

In Kok Kuan Hwa v Yap Wing Sang, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Formation ; Contract — Intention to create legal relations, Trusts — Resulting trusts.

Sushant Shukla· ·9 min read
Singapore

Yang Qiang and another v Gallop APAC Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 187

The court held that an oral agreement existed between the parties where the defendant held 90% of the shares in the company on trust for the claimant, and that the defendant breached this trust arrangement.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Deepak Mishra and another v Rashmi Bothra [2025] SGHC 170

The court held that while certain transactions within a running account were unenforceable due to illegality (LC Discount Trades), this did not render the entire running account unenforceable as the illegal transactions were severable from the valid ones.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Cheung Teck Cheong Richard and others v LVND Investments Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 161

The Singapore High Court dismissed claims against LVND Investments Pte Ltd, ruling that the plaintiffs affirmed their Sale and Purchase Agreements by attempting to rent out their units. This conduct barred their right to rescission, regardless of alleged misrepresentations.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd v The estate of Tan Kiat Lan, deceased (Integrated Power Solutions Pte Ltd and others, third parties) [2025] SGHC 160

The court held that while the plaintiff proved the existence of a fraudulent scheme, it failed to prove loss for the majority of transactions, and for the transactions where loss was proven, the plaintiff had already been fully compensated via a settlement agreement with a joint

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read