LITT
Try LITT free
L’Oreal and another v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 2
In L’Oreal v Shopee [2025] SGHCR 2, the court dismissed the application to lift the implied undertaking of confidentiality. It ruled that e-commerce disputes do not automatically override discovery protections, reinforcing the high threshold required to use disclosed documents for collateral purpose
Chern Chye Keow and another v Roger Peter Ponniah (administrator of the estate of John Danaraj Ponniah, deceased) [2025] SGHCR 19
The court held that Malaysia was the more appropriate forum for a dispute between estate beneficiaries and an administrator regarding the management of an estate, as the governing law of the dispute was Malaysia law and the relief sought involved land in Malaysia.
Armira Capital Ltd v Ji Zenghe and others [2025] SGHCR 18
The court held that while a contractual indemnity for costs is a highly relevant factor, it does not oust the court's discretion to assess costs for reasonableness and proportionality under the Rules of Court 2021.
National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Soh Keng Cheang Philip and another matter [2025] SGHCR 17
The court has a broad, discretionary power under s 7 of the IRDA to review, rescind or vary its own orders in insolvency proceedings, which should be exercised with caution and only in exceptional circumstances, such as where there is a material change of circumstances or fresh e
Third Eye Capital Corp v Pretty View Shipping SA and others [2025] SGHCR 16
A judgment creditor seeking a second or further EJD order against the same examinee must demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting further questioning, and the duty of full and frank disclosure requires disclosure of material facts, though not necessarily every detail of t
Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 15
In Fanco Fan Marketing Pte Ltd v Triple D Trading Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names.
Spackman Entertainment Group Ltd v Woo Sang Cheol [2025] SGHCR 14
The court clarified the principles governing the redaction of documents for irrelevance and the lifting of the Riddick undertaking in the context of civil litigation.
Re Chen Weiwen Kelvin (DBS Bank Ltd and another, non-parties) [2025] SGHCR 13
The court held that the sole test for insolvency under Part 14 of the IRDA is the cash flow test, and that a proposal for a voluntary arrangement must be serious and viable to warrant an interim order.
Vigar, Andrew v XL Insurance Company Se Singapore Branch [2025] SGHCR 12
The court held that an implied term in fact requiring an employer to comply with internal company policies is not necessary for business efficacy, and that broad implied duties of mutual trust and confidence do not extend to procedural requirements like promptness or thoroughness
DBS Bank Ltd v Li Yuan [2025] SGHCR 11
A debtor's request for more time to repay a debt does not constitute 'sufficient reason' under s 315(1) of the IRDA to stay bankruptcy proceedings, as it reinforces the debtor's inability to pay and confirms the bankruptcy application is properly maintained.
Sun Quan v AI MTBL SPV, LLC [2025] SGHCR 10
In Sun Quan v AI MTBL SPV, LLC, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Insolvency Law – Bankruptcy.
WTU v WTV [2025] SGHCF 8
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a District Judge's orders regarding the division of matrimonial assets and maintenance. The court found no errors in the lower court's exercise of discretion, affirming the original judgment in its entirety.
XBV v XBU [2025] SGHCF 7
The court held that an appeal against a subsequent clarification order that does not change the substantive effect of an earlier order is procedurally defective if the time to appeal the earlier order has expired.
XKG v XKF [2025] SGHCF 66
A donor lacks mental capacity to execute an LPA if they cannot understand, retain, and weigh information relevant to the decision, including the nature, purpose, and legal effect of the LPA and the consequences of granting authority to a donee.
XVI v XVJ and another [2025] SGHCF 65
In XVI v XVJ and another [2025] SGHCF 65 , the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) addressed the rigorous financial consequences attending a trustee’s failure to manage estate assets with due diligence. The dispute centered on the administration of a deceased’s e
XUW v XUX [2025] SGHCF 64
The court determined the division of matrimonial assets based on direct and indirect contributions, excluding pre-marital and gifted assets, and ordered the transfer of assets to the husband while refunding the wife's direct contribution.
XQN v XQO [2025] SGHCF 63
An anti-suit injunction may be granted to restrain a party from continuing foreign proceedings if the local court is the appropriate forum and the foreign proceedings were commenced to frustrate local proceedings or engage in forum shopping, but comity generally precludes interfe
XCG v XCF and another matter [2025] SGHCF 62
The court held that fresh evidence must satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test and that a marriage where one party is the primary income earner and the other is the homemaker is a single-income marriage.
XRV v XRW [2025] SGHCF 61
The court determined the division of matrimonial assets in a dual-income marriage, applying the ANJ v ANK structured approach, and found that the Wife was entitled to a 67.285% share based on her significant indirect financial and non-financial contributions.
XGO v XGN and another appeal [2025] SGHCF 60
In XGO v XGN and another appeal, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law — Custody.
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.
Father of XQD and XQE v Child Protector [2025] SGHCF 59
In Father of XQD and XQE v Child Protector, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Family Law — Youth Court.
XST v XSU [2025] SGHCF 58
Case Details * Citation: [2025] SGHCF 58 * Case Number: Divorce (Transferred) No 5187 of 2023 * Decision Date: 8 October 2025 * Court: General Division of the High Court (Family Division) * Coram: Choo Han Teck
XPA v XPB [2025] SGHCF 57
Case Details * Citation: [2025] SGHCF 57 * Case Number: Divorce (Transferred) No 5776 of 2022 * Decision Date: 29 September 2025 * Court: High Court of Singapore * Coram: Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J * Judgment Delivered