LITT
Try LITT free
DMC v DMD [2025] SGHC 151
In DMC v DMD, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Contractual terms ; Contract — Terms, Building and Construction Law — Statutes and regulations.
Straco Leisure Pte Ltd v Sumitomo (Shi) Cyclo Drive Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 150
The Singapore High Court ruled that reconditioning works were authorized, but held that the defendant's standard terms were not incorporated into the contract due to vague language, emphasizing strict requirements for incorporation by reference in commercial agreements.
Yeo Choon Jieng James v Tan Ker Xin and another [2025] SGHC 146
A sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity from its owner, and a contract entered into by a sole proprietorship can be novated to a new owner if there is sufficient evidence of the parties' consent.
THE “CHLOE V” [2025] SGHC 142
The court held that a mortgagee's approval right under a loan agreement does not encompass a decision to issue a letter of quiet enjoyment, and even if it did, such discretion is absolute and not subject to implied duties of rationality or good faith.
Feida Bus Consortium Pte Ltd v Royal Autoz Exporter Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 141
In Feida Bus Consortium Pte Ltd v Royal Autoz Exporter Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Contractual terms, Tort — Negligence.
Saha Ram Krishna and others v Tan Tai Joum (acting in his capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Tan Hee Liang, deceased) [2024] SGHC 9
The court held that two tenancy agreements for different parts of the same property were separate and independent contracts. While the landlord breached an implied term in the second agreement regarding the lawful construction of the third storey, the tenants affirmed the contrac
Jiangsu New Huaming International Trading Co Ltd v PT Musim Mas and another [2024] SGHC 81
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of an alleged exclusive agency agreement, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the contract and that the alleged contract was lopsided and lacked commercial sense.
Manoj Dharmadas Kalwani v Bharat Dharmadas Kalwani [2024] SGHC 70
In Manoj Dharmadas Kalwani v Bharat Dharmadas Kalwani, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Pleadings, Contract — Loan agreement.
Keppel DC Singapore 1 Ltd v DXC Technology Services Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 7
In Keppel DC Singapore 1 Ltd v DXC Technology Services Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Contractual terms.
Riady Tjandra v Cheng Yi Han [2024] SGHC 59
The court ruled that a valid contract for share purchase existed and was breached when the defendant failed to transfer shares to the claimant. Consequently, the defendant was held liable for both breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 39
The court held that no binding distribution agreement was formed between the parties because there was no intention to create legal relations, and the alleged agreement lacked certainty on essential terms such as the identity of the distributor, the P&A plan, the scope of rights,
Chiang Ai Ling v Tan Kian Chye and another [2024] SGHC 330
The Singapore High Court in Chiang Ai Ling v Tan Kian Chye [2024] SGHC 330 dismissed both the primary claim and counterclaims, ruling that the disputed agreements were shams intended to manipulate matrimonial asset division and clarifying the evidentiary threshold for conspiracy claims.
Lim Swee Joo v Nan Bei Dou Mu Gong and another [2024] SGHC 33
A claim for debt based on an oral loan agreement is enforceable if the plaintiff can prove the existence of the loan on a balance of probabilities, even if the oral agreement itself is void due to the non-existence of the corporate entity at the time of the agreement.
Khan Aisanullah v Rajib Kumar Dhali [2024] SGHC 313
In Khan Aisanullah v Rajib Kumar Dhali, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Companies — Members, Contract — Breach.
ISU Specialty Chemical Co Ltd v C&D (Singapore) Business Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 285
In ISU Specialty Chemical Co Ltd v C&D (Singapore) Business Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Formation.
Hoon Kee Meng and another v Dash Living Pte Ltd and another matter [2024] SGHC 27
The court held that a tenancy agreement, when interpreted in the context of a signed Letter of Intent, granted the tenant a right to renew for 24 months, and that the requirements for unilateral mistake rectification were met regarding the omission of the renewal term in the form
Oan Chim Seng v Leong Kai Rui (Liang Kairui) [2024] SGHC 268
In Oan Chim Seng v Leong Kai Rui (Liang Kairui), the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Formation ; Contract — Misrepresentation.
Tay Shing Lee Eileen v Liang Ting Pang Jeffrey [2024] SGHC 261
A settlement agreement is a valid contract, and a clause requiring a defendant to waive the right to contest proceedings and consent to judgment upon default is not void for being against public policy as it does not oust the court's residual jurisdiction.
Dabbs, Matthew Edward v AAM Advisory Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 260
In Dabbs, Matthew Edward v AAM Advisory Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Breach ; Contract — Contractual terms, Contract — Illegality and public policy.
AI MTBL SPV, LLC v MTBL Global Fund and another [2024] SGHC 255
The Singapore High Court ruled in AI MTBL SPV, LLC v MTBL Global Fund [2024] SGHC 255 that the Agreement to Subscribe remains valid while the Framework Agreement is discharged. The Court ordered the Fund to pay US$16.6m in redemption proceeds, awarding damages and interest against the Fund and Manag
Xia Zheng v Lee King Anne [2024] SGHC 253
A document executed as a sham does not create legal relations, and a resulting trust arises where property is purchased in the name of a nominee without an intention to gift the beneficial interest.
BGC Partners (Singapore) Ltd and another v Sumit Grover [2024] SGHC 206
The court held that the Employment Agreement was binding on the defendant, the defence of non est factum failed, and the employer was entitled to terminate the employment for failure to meet the performance ratio.
Rajesh Harichandra Budhrani v INTL FCStone Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 18
The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove claims of undue influence, duress, misrepresentation, and breach of contract regarding the liquidation of his silver futures contracts, as the defendants acted within their contractual rights under the Client Agreement.
Foreland Singapore Pte Ltd and another v IG Asia Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 179
The court held that while the defendant was entitled to refuse payment obligations due to a Force Majeure Event, it was not entitled to reverse the trades under the contract. However, the plaintiffs failed to prove any loss caused by the wrongful reversal.