LITTLITT Try LITT free
Singapore

Deutsche Bank AG Singapore Branch v ARJ Holding Ltd and another [2025] SGHC 163

The dispute in Deutsche Bank AG Singapore Branch v ARJ Holding Ltd and another [2025] SGHC 163 represents a significant examination of the boundaries of a bank's contractual discretion within the context of private banking and wealth management. The litigation arose from the term

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Anita Damu (alias Shazana bte Abdullah) v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2025] SGHC 162

The court held that the Appellant's claim of auditory hallucinations was a fabrication and that the sentencing framework for offences under s 324 read with s 73(2) of the Penal Code requires a structured approach accounting for physical harm, dangerous means, and victim vulnerabi

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Cheung Teck Cheong Richard and others v LVND Investments Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 161

The Singapore High Court dismissed claims against LVND Investments Pte Ltd, ruling that the plaintiffs affirmed their Sale and Purchase Agreements by attempting to rent out their units. This conduct barred their right to rescission, regardless of alleged misrepresentations.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd v The estate of Tan Kiat Lan, deceased (Integrated Power Solutions Pte Ltd and others, third parties) [2025] SGHC 160

The court held that while the plaintiff proved the existence of a fraudulent scheme, it failed to prove loss for the majority of transactions, and for the transactions where loss was proven, the plaintiff had already been fully compensated via a settlement agreement with a joint

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Sw Chan Kit v Ntegrator Holdings Ltd [2025] SGHC 16

A debtor-company must show a substantial and bona fide dispute to resist a winding-up application, with the standard being the same as for resisting summary judgment.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Rai Vijay Kumar v Law Society of Singapore [2025] SGHC 159

The court held that it does not have the power under s 97 of the Legal Profession Act to declare a claimant not guilty or to reduce a penalty imposed by a Disciplinary Tribunal; its powers are limited to remitting the matter for rehearing or directing a new tribunal.

Sushant Shukla· ·15 min read
Singapore

Seng Yong Yi Lucas v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 158

In Seng Yong Yi Lucas v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Criminal Law — Statutory offences, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Trials.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

JDA v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2025] SGHC 157

A criminal conviction must be based on evidence that is reliable, and consistency is a key determinant of reliability. Inconsistencies in a witness's evidence relating to facts surrounding the commission of an offence are relevant to determining whether that witness is an unusual

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Re Ariffin Iskandar Sha bin Ali Akbar and other matters [2025] SGHC 156

The court clarified that for Legacy Cases under the 2024 admission regime, exclusionary periods of 12 months or more should be effected by a stay of the application to avoid deemed discontinuance under the Rules of Court 2021.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Re Pulara Devminie Somachandra [2025] SGHC 155

The principle of open justice is the predominant interest in admission proceedings, and anonymisation will only be granted if there is credible evidence of an imminent and credible threat of grave and disproportionate harm.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Alphard Maritime Ltd v Samson Maritime Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 154

In Alphard Maritime Ltd v Samson Maritime Ltd [2025] SGHC 154, the High Court set aside freezing orders and injunctions, ruling that the applicant failed to prove a real risk of asset dissipation or the 'urgency' required under s 12A(4) of the International Arbitration Act.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Compania De Navegacion Palomar SA and others v Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala and another suit and another matter [2025] SGHC 153

The Singapore High Court clarified that the Riddick principle applies only to disclosures made under compulsion. When documents are produced to resist interlocutory applications, courts must examine the context to determine if the disclosure was voluntary or compelled.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

DNQ v DNR [2025] SGHC 152

In DNQ v DNR, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Civil Procedure — Mareva injunctions, Civil Procedure — Pleadings.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

DMC v DMD [2025] SGHC 151

In DMC v DMD, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Contractual terms ; Contract — Terms, Building and Construction Law — Statutes and regulations.

Sushant Shukla· ·10 min read
Singapore

Straco Leisure Pte Ltd v Sumitomo (Shi) Cyclo Drive Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 150

The Singapore High Court ruled that reconditioning works were authorized, but held that the defendant's standard terms were not incorporated into the contract due to vague language, emphasizing strict requirements for incorporation by reference in commercial agreements.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Muhammed Izwan bin Borhan and another [2025] SGHC 15

Additional evidence taken on remittal did not raise a reasonable doubt regarding the original conviction.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Re Singapore Medical Council [2025] SGHC 148

The court granted an extension of time for the Complaints Committee to complete its inquiry under s 45(4) of the MRA, but emphasised that such applications are judicial in nature and require sufficient evidence and timely filing.

Sushant Shukla· ·11 min read
Singapore

Protrade Steel Co Ltd v Aussins Overseas Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 147

A non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in a standard-form contract carries less weight in a forum non conveniens analysis, and the governing law being a foreign law is insufficient on its own to support a stay.

Sushant Shukla· ·13 min read
Singapore

Yeo Choon Jieng James v Tan Ker Xin and another [2025] SGHC 146

A sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity from its owner, and a contract entered into by a sole proprietorship can be novated to a new owner if there is sufficient evidence of the parties' consent.

Sushant Shukla· ·12 min read
Singapore

Ng Chin Huay v Tan Tien Tuck and another and another matter [2025] SGHC 145

In Ng Chin Huay v Tan Tien Tuck [2025] SGHC 145, the court held that beneficial interests in property follow legal interests where evidence of intent is lacking. It affirmed that co-owners are joint tenants in equity and applied the presumption of advancement in a familial property dispute.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read
Singapore

Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Lau Lee Sheng and others [2025] SGHC 144

The judgment in Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Lau Lee Sheng and others [2025] SGHC 144 represents a significant development in the ongoing litigation surrounding the "Envy Ponzi Scheme," arguably the largest fraudulent scheme in Singapore's history.

Sushant Shukla· ·14 min read
Singapore

Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Ng Yu Zhi and others [2025] SGHC 143

The judgment in [2025] SGHC 143 represents a definitive judicial reckoning with the fallout of what has been characterized as the largest Ponzi scheme in Singapore’s history. The proceedings involve the Envy Companies—Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd ("EAM"), Envy Global Trading Pte

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

THE “CHLOE V” [2025] SGHC 142

The court held that a mortgagee's approval right under a loan agreement does not encompass a decision to issue a letter of quiet enjoyment, and even if it did, such discretion is absolute and not subject to implied duties of rationality or good faith.

Sushant Shukla· ·17 min read
Singapore

Feida Bus Consortium Pte Ltd v Royal Autoz Exporter Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 141

In Feida Bus Consortium Pte Ltd v Royal Autoz Exporter Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Contractual terms, Tort — Negligence.

Sushant Shukla· ·8 min read