LITT
Try LITT free
GII v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 38
In GII v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Appeal ; Criminal Law — Offences.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Jinxian [2025] SGHC 37
In Public Prosecutor v Tan Jinxian, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences.
Public Prosecutor v CIC [2025] SGHC 36
In Public Prosecutor v CIC, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences ; Evidence — Witnesses.
Primepulse Consultancy Pte Ltd v Chan Pau Tee and another and another matter [2025] SGHC 35
The High Court dismissed Primepulse Consultancy's application to maintain caveats, ruling the applicant failed to prove they were not lodged in bad faith. The court declined to rule on the alleged sham moneylending transaction, deferring the issue to concurrent proceedings in OC 904.
Jonathan John Shipping Ltd v Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 34
In Jonathan John Shipping Ltd v Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions.
Lim Hua Tong Jasons v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 33
The High Court dismissed the appeal in Lim Hua Tong Jasons v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 33, affirming the conviction and sentence for Outraging of Modesty. The court rejected claims of a conspiracy and upheld the application of the Kunasekaran sentencing framework for sexual offences.
Akbar Ali s/o Abdul Majeed v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 32
In Akbar Ali s/o Abdul Majeed v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Appeal.
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.
Public Prosecutor v Lee Heng Wong [2025] SGHC 3
In Public Prosecutor v Lee Heng Wong, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Sentencing.
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.
Public Prosecutor v Albao Shiela Marie Ibales [2025] SGHC 265
In Public Prosecutor v Albao Shiela Marie Ibales, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Lee Hwa [2025] SGHC 264
In Public Prosecutor v Koh Lee Hwa, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Offences.
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.
Public Prosecutor v Gao Xiong [2025] SGHC 260
In Public Prosecutor v Gao Xiong, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing.
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.
Lee Hsueh Ching (alias Lee Sargeant Fiona) and another v Loh Kia Hui (Bank Julius Baer & Co Ltd, third party) [2025] SGHC 258
In Lee Hsueh Ching v Loh Kia Hui [2025] SGHC 258, the High Court dismissed both the primary claim for professional negligence and the third-party claim against Bank Julius Baer. The court awarded indemnity costs to the defendant, clarifying the high threshold for shifting third-party litigation cost