LITT
Try LITT free
Rita Kishinchand Bhojwani v HVS Properties Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 80
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for proprietary estoppel, contractual licence, and conspiracy, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and that her evidence was unreliable.
Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter [2025] SGHC 236
A fiduciary who makes unauthorised withdrawals from a joint account in breach of their fiduciary duties is liable to repay the sums withdrawn. A loan agreement is established where money is advanced and the surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous conduct indicate an intenti
Teo Chee Wei Kelvin v Wong Lulong Wilson and another [2025] SGHC 210
The court found that the transfer of the car was a security arrangement rather than an outright sale, and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and trust by using the car as security for an unauthorised excess loan.
Tio Geok Hong Bryan v Korbett Pte Ltd and another and another suit [2025] SGHC 196
The court held that a trust arrangement made after the execution of a trust deed does not automatically revive upon the annulment of a reconveyance deed, and that a trustee must act in good faith for the benefit of all beneficiaries, requiring consent for expenses outside of agre
Yeo Xueli Celeste v Sin David and another [2025] SGHC 166
The court held that the claimant failed to establish a reasonable cause of action for dishonest assistance and conspiracy against the second defendant, as the pleaded facts did not support the existence of fiduciary duties or the requisite knowledge for dishonesty.
ATT Systems (S’pore) Pte Ltd and another v Centricore (S) Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 13
The court held that a bifurcated approach applies to breach of confidence claims, distinguishing between wrongful gain and wrongful loss interests, and that the plaintiffs successfully established breach of confidence and employment contract obligations by the defendants.
Madison Pacific Trust Ltd and others v David Salim and another [2025] SGHC 128
Case Details * Citation: [2025] SGHC 128 * Case Number: Originating Application No 891 of 2023 (Summons No 1067 of 2025) * Decision Date: 7 July 2025 * Court: General Division of the High Court of
Tia Oon Lai v Tia Sock Kiu Sally (personal representative of Su Ye Chu, deceased) and others [2025] SGHC 108
In Tia Oon Lai v Tia Sock Kiu Sally [2025] SGHC 108, the High Court ordered the Estate and Sally to account for rental proceeds while dismissing claims against the third defendant, clarifying the evidentiary threshold for fiduciary duties in family financial management.
JPL Industries Pte Ltd v Lanka Marine Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 30
In JPL Industries Pte Ltd v Lanka Marine Services Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders, Equity — Defences.
Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 50
In Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Statutes and regulations, Equity — Estoppel.
BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd v Kim Byung Gun [2024] SGHC 197
In BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd v Kim Byung Gun, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Equity — Remedies ; Civil Procedure — Costs.
Ho Dat Khoon v Chan Wai Leen (in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the estate of Wong Ching Fong, deceased) and another [2023] SGHC 326
The court held that a voluntary transfer of property can be set aside for mistake if the transferor was under a causative mistake as to the legal effect of the transaction, and the mistake was of such gravity that it would be unconscionable to refuse relief.
Lian Tian Yong Johnny v Tan Swee Wan and another [2023] SGHC 292
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to equitable contribution due to the unclean hands defence, but reversed the lower court's decision allowing the respondents' counterclaims for indemnity as they were not sufficiently proven.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2006] SGHC 205
The court held that proprietary estoppel requires a broad inquiry into whether it would be unconscionable for a party to resile from a representation or expectation they encouraged, and that the remedy must be proportionate to the detriment suffered.
Chew Tong Seng and Another v Chew Cheng Quee and Another Matter [2006] SGHC 149
The court held that the presumption of advancement was rebutted where property was registered in a child's name but the father retained beneficial interest, and that there was no estoppel by convention where there was no shared assumption of facts.
SM Trading Services (a firm) v Intersanctuary Ltd (Kek Kim Hok, Third Party) [2006] SGHC 102
The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and upheld the defendant's counterclaim, ruling that the plaintiff and third party conspired to defraud the defendant. The court emphasized that an agent's failure to disclose financial interests constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.
Bank of China v Yong Tze Enterprise (Pte) Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 68
The court held that the 1996 letter was superseded by the 1999 letter, and therefore no representation existed for the purpose of estoppel by representation. Furthermore, the court found no unconscionability to justify the remedy of subrogation.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Tan Teck Khong and Another (committee of the estate of Pang Jong Wan, mentally disordered) and Others [2005] SGHC 61
A mortgage executed under undue influence is voidable, but can be affirmed by the conduct of the party entitled to avoid it. The solicitor acting for the mortgagee and mortgagor has a duty to ensure the mortgagor is acting of their own free will, which requires a private consulta
Joshua Steven v Joshua Deborah Steven and Others (No 2) [2004] SGHC 184
An amendment to pleadings at the end of a trial will not be allowed if it introduces a distinct defence that would require further cross-examination and prejudice the other party, especially when the litigation could have been conducted efficiently from the start.
Vellasamy Lakshimi v Muthusamy Suppiah David [2003] SGHC 75
The plaintiff failed to prove allegations of fraud and deceit in the transfer of property and withdrawal of funds, as the burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud.
Sin Sai Peng and Another v Soh Kim Lian Florence [2002] SGHC 233
In disputes involving unforeseen circumstances in property ownership between parties in a relationship, the court will impute a common intention of reasonable persons to resolve the dispute, which may include granting vacant possession conditional upon payment of the outstanding
Panwell Pte Ltd v Indian Bank (No 2) [2001] SGHC 315
The court held that the bank was estopped by convention from asserting that the 1990 offer had lapsed, as both parties had conducted their business relationship on the common assumption that the offer's terms were in force.
Management Corporation Strata Title No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd [2001] SGHC 206
The High Court ruled against the Management Corporation (MC) in its dispute with De Beers Jewellery, ordering the repayment of $370,000 plus interest. The court rejected the MC's 'change of position' defense, clarifying that it cannot be used to justify the retention of wrongfully demanded funds.
Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd [2001] SGHC 121
The court granted relief against forfeiture of shares where the forfeiture provision was essentially a penalty to secure payment, and the notice of forfeiture was technically invalid.