LITT
Try LITT free
XON v XOM and another appeal [2026] SGHCF 6
The court clarified the criteria for admitting fresh evidence on appeal in family proceedings, distinguishing between post-hearing evidence (perceptible impact test) and pre-hearing evidence (Ladd v Marshall test), and emphasised that material changes in circumstances should be a
Mustaqim bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2026] SGCA 15
The court held that an application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal is an abuse of process where the applicant deliberately chose not to adduce such evidence at trial for tactical reasons.
Re Nagarani d/o Karuppiah (Maybank Singapore Ltd and others, non-parties) and another matter [2025] SGHC 115
The court held that an extension of an interim order under the IRDA requires a serious and viable proposal, and that the claimants failed to demonstrate this as their proposals were contingent on failed schemes of arrangement and faced strong creditor opposition.
WZT v WZU and another matter [2025] SGHCF 6
Unemployment is not a determinative factor in assessing child maintenance obligations, and the onus remains on the parent to provide evidence of financial means and efforts to seek employment.
DNG FZE v PayPal Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 65
The court affirmed that striking out for breach of an unless order is a proportionate response where the breach is intentional and contumelious, and where the non-compliance prejudices a fair trial.
SW Trustees Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and another v Teodros Ashenafi Tesemma and others (Teodros Ashenafi Tesemma, third party) [2023] SGHC 273
The court held that the requirements in Ladd v Marshall apply to the admission of fresh evidence in interlocutory appeals, though they may be applied with less rigour than in appeals following a full trial. Furthermore, the court clarified that for s 29(1)(a) of the Limitation Ac
Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another v Pradeepto Kumar Biswas and another matter [2023] SGHC 262
A bankrupt is incompetent to commence, continue, or defend any action without the previous sanction of the Official Assignee or Private Trustee in Bankruptcy, unless the action falls within the specific exceptions in s 401(1) of the IRDA.
Tan Sia Boo v Ong Chiang Kwong [2007] SGHC 131
The principles of Ladd v Marshall are strictly applied in appeals from a registrar's assessment of damages where the hearing before the registrar was akin to a trial involving oral evidence.
Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 130
A judge in chambers hearing a registrar's appeal conducts a rehearing, but must apply the Ladd v Marshall conditions (specifically the second and third conditions) as reasonable conditions for the exercise of discretion to admit fresh evidence.
Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee Ah [2004] SGHC 55
The principles in Ladd v Marshall apply to Registrar's Appeals in the High Court, meaning fresh evidence is not automatically admissible.
Chew Gim Ser v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGHC 246
The court held that the appellant was concerned in the importation of uncustomed cigarettes and that the conditions for adducing fresh evidence on appeal were not met.
Pritam Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh v Public Prosecutor [2003] SGHC 160
The court held that fresh evidence must be relevant to the appeal to be admissible under s 257(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the benchmark sentence for abetting an offence under s 57 of the Immigration Act is 12 months.
Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd v Goh Heng Tee
The court held that the Defendant had actual notice of the Second Xiamen Proceedings, thereby refuting the allegation of breach of natural justice. The court also clarified the application of the Ladd v Marshall requirements for adducing fresh evidence on appeal.
Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan [2018] SGCA 10
The Ladd v Marshall conditions for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal apply in an unattenuated manner to applications by the Prosecution in criminal proceedings, unlike the more lenient approach applied to applications by accused persons.
ISABELLE LEW HUEY JIUN & Anor v MICHAEL LEE YU RU & Anor
An application for an extension of time to file an appeal will be dismissed if the proposed appeal is hopeless, and fresh evidence will not be admitted on appeal if it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the trial below.
D.N.G FZE v PAYPAL PTE. LTD.
The court held that striking out a party's case for breach of an unless order is a proportionate response when the breach is intentional and contumelious, and there are no viable alternatives.