DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP v HIN LEONG TRADING (PTE.) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION)
Outcome
Claim dismissed“…the claim was dismissed on the basis, among others, that the defendant did not owe the claimant a duty of care to give accurate information about waiting times.”
Source: [2026] SGCA 33, Court of Appeal, decided 16 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 13–19 July 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Ang Cheng Hock, Hri Kumar Nair, Kannan Ramesh, Steven Chong, Sundaresh Menon |
| Charges / claim | Tort, Contract |
| Outcome | Claim dismissed |
| Counsel | Drew & Napier LLC, WongPartnership LLP, Brandon Wong Wei Lun, Cavinder Bull, Chia Voon Jiet, Chong Wan Yee Monica, Clarissa Wong, Foo Hsien Li, Ho Yi Jie, Lin Weiqi Wendy, Nicole Therese Lim Su Anne, Tan Cheng Han, Tan Ju Wei Matthew, Tan Shihao Sean |
Source: [2026] SGCA 33, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (5)
Counsel (14)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Deloitte & Touche LLP v Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) [2026] SGCA 33 is a Court of Appeal decision, with Ang Cheng Hock JCA delivering the judgment of the court, dated 16 July 2026, in Civil Appeal No 33 of 2025. Hin Leong Trading, acting through its liquidators, sued its former auditor Deloitte for negligence in failing to detect and report irregularities in its financial statements. Deloitte sought to strike out parts of the claim. The issues were whether the Lim Family's knowledge and a so-called Creditor Duty defeated the claim, and whether Trading Losses of US$2.6 billion incurred between November 2015 and mid-April 2020 were recoverable. The court declined to answer the Creditor Duty Question as academic, held the Trading Losses too remote under Hadley v Baxendale, and struck out that part of the claim, fixing costs of $40,000.
[2026] SGCA 33 explained
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP v HIN LEONG TRADING (PTE.) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) ([2026] SGCA 33) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 16 July 2026. It is categorised under Tort and Contract. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGCA 33 about?
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP v HIN LEONG TRADING (PTE.) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) ([2026] SGCA 33) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Negligence — Damages”, “Contract — Damages — Remoteness”, and “Tort — Negligence — Scope of duty”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 33 consider?
The judgment refers to Civil Liability Act, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A), Insolvency Act, and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2026] SGCA 33?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGCA 33 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Can an auditor be liable for trading losses in Deloitte & Touche LLP v Hin Leong Trading [2026] SGCA 33?
The Court of Appeal held that Hin Leong Trading's Trading Losses of US$2.6 billion were too remote and irrecoverable from Deloitte, even assuming negligence. It struck out the pleadings on that head of loss.
What costs were ordered in [2026] SGCA 33?
The court fixed the costs of the appeal and of the permission application at $40,000 (all-in), payable by Hin Leong Trading to Deloitte. It also substituted costs orders of $15,000 for RA 141 and $10,000 for SUM 474 in Deloitte's favour.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (45)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 33)