LITT
Try LITT free
Wong Joo Wan (as liquidator of Envy Hospitality Holdings Pte Ltd (in members’ voluntary liquidation)) v Lim Siong Heng Raymond and another [2025] SGHC 52
The court affirmed the liquidator's rejection of a creditor's proof of debt and admission of another creditor's proof of debt, finding that the liquidator's decisions were correct and that the application was of advantage to the liquidation.
Aastar Trading Pte Ltd v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 5
The court may adjourn enforcement proceedings under s 31(5) of the IAA pending the outcome of setting aside proceedings in the seat court if it is proper to do so, balancing factors such as the bona fides of the challenge, the merits of the challenge, the risk of dissipation of a
Re Compuage Infocom Ltd and another [2025] SGHC 49
The court held that the Indian Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) qualifies as a 'foreign proceeding' under the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the Resolution Professional is a 'foreign representative'. The court granted recognition but declined to grant immediate relief for
Sun Yongjian and another v Goh Seng Heng [2025] SGHC 47
The court held that while the defendant established a prima facie defence, the inordinate and inexcusable delay in applying to set aside the default judgment, combined with the prejudice to the claimants that could not be remedied by costs, justified the court's refusal to exerci
Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Sufian bin Hussain [2025] SGHC 45
The court held that the principle of escalation justifies a longer term of corrective training for persistent offenders, provided the sentence remains proportionate to the gravity of the instant offence.
Law Society of Singapore v Chen Kok Siang Joseph and another matter [2025] SGHC 44
A solicitor who engages in dishonest conduct, prefers their own interests over their client's, and fails to supervise staff in a way that allows for the unauthorized practice of law, is unfit to remain on the roll of advocates and solicitors.
Zhong Renhai and others v Goh Sock Ngee and others [2025] SGHC 43
A worldwide freezing order (WFO) and proprietary injunction (PI) may be upheld where the claimant establishes a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation, supported by evidence of dishonesty, and where the balance of convenience favours the injunction.
Ang Tien Sin v Lai Kin Sin and others [2025] SGHC 42
The court held that the removal of a director under Article 74 of the Company's Articles of Association at a General Meeting requires only an ordinary resolution, not a special resolution.
Hayate Partners Pte Ltd v Rajan Sunil Kumar [2025] SGHC 41
The court held that an employee breached contractual and equitable obligations of confidence by retaining confidential information after employment termination, despite the absence of express contractual prohibitions against accessing or downloading such information for non-work
Shipworks Engineering Pte Ltd and another v Sembcorp Marine Integrated Yard Pte Ltd and another and other suits [2025] SGHC 40
The court determined the quantum of damages owed between parties following a previous judgment, resolving disputes over timesheet validity, administrative charges, and specific work order claims.
Glassberg, Jonathan William v UBS AG, Singapore Branch [2025] SGHC 4
The court held that the defendant bank did not owe a contractual or tortious duty of care to the plaintiff regarding an investment recommended by a relationship manager, as the manager lacked actual or ostensible authority and the bank's terms expressly disclaimed such liability.
Java Asset Holding Ltd v Sin David [2025] SGHC 39
The court held that the 'serious possibility' threshold for an expedited bankruptcy application under s 314 IRDA is lower than the 'real risk' threshold for a Mareva injunction, and that the test is objective based on facts reasonably known to the creditor.
DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31
The court has no jurisdiction to review the Registrar's administrative decisions in an arbitration, and the Registrar has the power to review and reconsider his own administrative decisions.
SME Resources Pte Ltd v Koh Xiankai (Goh Chye Guan, third party) and another matter [2025] SGHC 30
Claims for breach of fiduciary duty are subject to a six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, and the doctrine of separate legal personality means a company can sue its sole beneficial owner for removing its assets.
DLV and another v DLX and others [2025] SGHC 29
An arbitral award will not be set aside on the ground that the tribunal failed to apply its mind to an essential issue unless such failure is a clear and virtually inescapable inference from the award.
India Glycols Ltd and others v Texan Minerals and Chemicals LLC [2025] SGHC 28
An arbitral award may be set aside under Art 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law if the tribunal decides matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, such as imposing liability on parties who were not signatories to the contract breached.
SME Care Pte Ltd v Chan Siew Lee Jannie and another matter [2025] SGHC 27
The judgment in SME Care Pte Ltd v Chan Siew Lee Jannie and another matter [2025] SGHC 27 addresses the complex intersection of bankruptcy administration, the finality of consent judgments, and the fiduciary duties of directors in the "zone of insolvency." The proceedings involve
Wish Controls Pte Ltd v Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 267
Costs generally follow the event, and where both parties succeed in part, costs are awarded to reflect relative success, with the court exercising its power of set-off.
FirstCom Academy Pte Ltd v Oom Academy Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 266
The Singapore High Court dismissed a claim regarding restraint of trade clauses, ruling them void and unenforceable. The court held that general sales training does not establish a legitimate proprietary interest necessary to justify such restrictions.
Avinderpal Singh s/o Ranjit Singh v Kim David Dong Won and another [2025] SGHC 263
The court dismissed the applicant's application to reverse the liquidators' partial rejection of his proof of debt, finding that the applicant failed to discharge his burden of proving the debts were owed by the company.
Public Prosecutor v Ramalingam Selvasekaran [2025] SGHC 262
The court held that the victim's evidence was unusually convincing and corroborated by the accused's own statements, sufficient to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
JS Film Investment Pty Ltd v Yao Liang and others [2025] SGHC 261
The court held that the share transfer was in discharge of the loan obligation, and the defendants failed to establish their counterclaim for additional shares.
Höptner, Georg Alexander v Three Fins Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 26
The court held that the defendant's summary dismissal of the claimant was wrongful because the defendant failed to establish that it had made a determination for 'Termination for Cause' as required by the employment contract, and the alleged breaches were technical and did not ju
Re Energe Asia Pte Ltd (PETCO Trading Labuan Co Ltd and others, non-parties) [2025] SGHC 259
A moratorium application under s 64 of the IRDA is an extraordinary relief that requires the court to balance the need for restructuring space against creditor interests, with the applicant bearing the burden to prove good faith and sufficient creditor support.