LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Parvaty d/o Raju and another v National University Hospital (S) Pte Ltd and another [2026] SGHC 7

The court held that medical professionals are not negligent if their actions are supported by a responsible body of medical opinion, and that the duty to advise patients on treatment options is governed by the patient's perspective on materiality, excluding obviously inappropriat

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Singapore

Supuletchimi d/o Rajoogopal v Tay Boon Keng and Others [2002] SGHC 31

A doctor is not negligent if they act in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion, provided that such opinion has a logical basis.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Gunapathy Muniandy v James Khoo and Others [2001] SGHC 165

The judgment in Gunapathy Muniandy v James Khoo and Others [2001] SGHC 165 represents one of the most exhaustive examinations of medical negligence and the application of the Bolam test in Singapore’s legal history. Spanning nearly 300 pages, the decision by G P Selvam J addresse

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

Surender Singh s/o Jagdish Singh And Another (administrators of the estate of Narindar Kaur d/o Sarwan Singh) v Li Man Kay and Others

The court held that the defendants were not negligent in the performance of the HALDN procedure, but NUH was negligent in failing to monitor the patient post-operatively in the general ward.

Sushant Shukla· ·16 min read
Def. glossary
Legal Maxim: Novus Actus Interveniens
Novus Actus Interveniens is a legal doctrine that breaks the chain of causation, relieving a defendant of liability when an unforeseeable, independent act intervenes between their action and the resulting harm.
Read full entry