LITT
Try LITT free
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.
NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Ltd v Carlin, Noel Martin [2026] SGHC 48
The Insurance Exception to the rule against double recovery applies where an employee has contributed to the insurance policy (including indirectly through accepting a lower salary package), allowing them to retain both insurance payouts and tort damages.
Chia June Theo Grace (Xie Yunzhen) Mrs Grace Doney and others v Selvakumar Ranjan and another [2026] SGHC 26
The High Court awarded S$1,908,431.80 and A$87,498.79 in damages for loss of dependency and inheritance in Chia June Theo Grace v Selvakumar Ranjan [2026] SGHC 26. The court clarified PIRC Table applications and rejected claims for deprivation of family benefits, aligning with statutory bereavement
CVK v CVO and others [2025] SGHC 245
The court declined to order compensation on an undertaking as to damages because the freezing order was not the effective cause of the loss; rather, the loss was caused by the unreasonable conduct of the defendant and a failure to mitigate.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 232
The court held that damages for conspiracy should be assessed on the basis of the actual purchase price (APP) loans basis, and that statutory interest is only payable on the net sum of damages after deductions for mitigation failures.
Fauzi bin Noh v Zulkepli bin Husain (MSIG Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, intervener) [2025] SGHC 172
The court held that the Plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by obtaining employment in Malaysia after the accident, and that the Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving otherwise.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) [2025] SGHC 122
In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG), the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Damages — Assessment; Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names.
Lee Sim Leng v SMRT Buses Ltd [2025] SGHC 11
In Lee Sim Leng v SMRT Buses Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Damages — Measure of damages.
Shri Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd v Steel Corp Ltd [2025] SGHC 107
In Shri Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd v Steel Corp Ltd [2025] SGHC 107, the Singapore High Court awarded US$1,050,000 in damages, ruling that compensation must reflect actual losses from mitigation rather than theoretical market price differences for non-resale goods.
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.
Lim Ing Haan v Tuan ‘Abdu Qayyim bin Tuan Isa [2024] SGHC 86
The court assessed the loss of future earnings for an interventional cardiologist following a traffic accident, determining that a 25% reduction in working capacity was appropriate after an anticipated partial wrist fusion surgery.
Rajina Sharma d/o Rajandran (suing by her litigation representative Theyvasigamani s/o Periasamy) v Theyvasigamani s/o Periasamy and another (Song Teck Chong, third party) [2024] SGHC 42
In Rajina Sharma v Theyvasigamani [2024] SGHC 42, the Singapore High Court ruled that a plaintiff can recover damages for gratuitous care provided by a family member, even if that caregiver is the tortfeasor. The court awarded $93,080 for care costs, rejecting arguments against double recovery.
Li Jialin and another v Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 314
In Li Jialin v Wingcrown Investment [2024] SGHC 314, the High Court allowed the purchasers' appeal, ruling that the developer could not claim damages as forfeited deposits and option fees must be credited, effectively extinguishing the claim.
True Yoga Pte Ltd and others v Wee Ewe Seng Patrick John [2024] SGHC 228
The court held that in a non-custodial breach of fiduciary duty, the fiduciary bears the legal burden of proving that the claimant would have suffered the loss despite the breach. The court adopted the Historical Benchmark for quantifying damages.
Fantom Foundation Ltd v Multichain Foundation Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 173
The court assessed damages for breach of contract involving cryptocurrency assets by reference to the market value at the date of breach, noting that while the breach date rule is a general principle, it is not a universal rule and may be departed from if it causes injustice.
Golden Pacific Shipping & Holdings Pte Ltd v Arc Marine Engineering Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 15
In Golden Pacific Shipping & Holdings Pte Ltd v Arc Marine Engineering Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Bailment — Negligence, Damages — Mitigation.
TOWA Corp v ASMPT Singapore Pte Ltd and another appeal [2024] SGCA 52
The court held that 'general additional costs of sales' which are unclassified and apply to the whole product range should be proportionally allocated to the infringing product line, as it is reasonable to infer these costs increase with sales.
Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng [2024] SGCA 28
In Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng, the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Damages — Measure of damages, Damages — Rules in awarding.
Eng Beng v Lo Kok Jong [2023] SGHC 63
Government subsidies and grants conferred upon an injured plaintiff are akin to collateral benefits falling within the Benevolence Exception to the rule against double recovery, and are therefore not deductible from damages recoverable from a tortfeasor.
Poongothai Kuppusamy v Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd & Other [2023] SGHC 215
The judgment in Poongothai Kuppusamy v Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd & Other [2023] SGHC 215 represents a comprehensive judicial exposition on the assessment of damages for catastrophic personal injuries, specifically focusing on the quantification of losses following a lower-l
Lang Ren Jee Renata Mrs Tay Ren Jee Renata v Toh Yih Wei [2023] SGHC 147
A defendant cannot challenge the issue of causation at the assessment of damages stage if interlocutory judgment has already been entered.
Ramesh s/o Ayakanno (suing by the committee of the person and the estate, Ramiah Naragatha Vally) v Chua Gim Hock [2008] SGHC 33
The court held that an appropriate multiplier for loss of future earnings must be assessed with reference to the plaintiff's natural working life if the accident had not occurred, rather than the plaintiff's reduced lifespan resulting from the accident.
Hanson Ingrid Christina and Others v Tan Puey Tze and Another Appeal [2007] SGHC 203
The High Court partially allowed the appeal in Hanson Ingrid Christina v Tan Puey Tze [2007] SGHC 203, revising dependency awards for the deceased's family. The court emphasized realistic working life projections and specific support periods over speculative income calculations.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and Another [2007] SGHC 153
In Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, the High Court found the bank breached its duties as a pledgee in selling shares but awarded only nominal damages of $1,000 as the plaintiff failed to prove the shares were sold at an undervalue. Conspiracy claims were dismissed.