Andrew Cheah Kim Wee & Anor v Low Xiang Ping Jane
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Evans Ng |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Tang Thomas LLC, Lulla Ammar Khan |
Source: [2026] SGDC 92, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
[2026] SGDC 92 explained
Andrew Cheah Kim Wee & Anor v Low Xiang Ping Jane ([2026] SGDC 92) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 12 March 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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] SGDC 92 about?
Andrew Cheah Kim Wee & Anor v Low Xiang Ping Jane ([2026] SGDC 92) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Striking out”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 92 consider?
The judgment refers to Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (5)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 92)