Chan Swee Lean & Anor v LLS CAPITAL PTE LTD

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(A) 10 consider?

The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC(A) 10 High Court (Appellate Division) 16 April 2026 AD/CA 98/2025 · AD/CA 99/2025 25 min read

10 cases cited (9 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	16 April 2026
Judges	Debbie Ong Siew Ling, See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure, Abuse of Process, Credit and Security
Counsel	Cairnhill Law LLC, UniLegal LLC, Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah, Derek Kang Yu Hsien, Hui Kwai Weng, Jonathan

Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 10, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 16 April 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Appeals Abuse of Process — Henderson v Henderson doctrine Credit and Security — Money and moneylenders — Illegal moneylending

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Credit and Security

Judges (2)

Debbie Ong Siew Ling Coram See Kee Oon Delivered

Counsel (5)

Cairnhill Law LLC Firm UniLegal LLC Firm Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah Counsel Respondent Derek Kang Yu Hsien Counsel Appellant Hui Kwai Weng, Jonathan Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

LLS Capital Pte Ltd Respondent Two Buffalo Pte Ltd Appellant Chan Swee Lean Appellant

Case Significance

In Chan Swee Lean and another v LLS Capital Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC(A) 10, the Appellate Division of the High Court — comprising Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and See Kee Oon JAD (delivering judgment) — dismissed two civil appeals arising from a loan of approximately $2.8 million extended by LLS Capital Pte Ltd to Two Buffalo Pte Ltd, with Dr Chan Swee Lean as guarantor and his residential property at 1 Holland Avenue as further security by way of mortgage. When Two Buffalo defaulted, LLS took possession of the property and moved to sell it; the appellants obtained an ex parte injunction to restrain the sale, alleging the Loan Agreement was an illegal moneylending transaction. The Appellate Division's decision of 16 April 2026, heard on 26 January 2026, also addressed the Henderson v Henderson doctrine on abuse of process and civil procedure on appeals, with Derek Kang Yu Hsien and Jonathan Hui Kwai Weng of Cairnhill Law LLC appearing for the appellants and Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah of UniLegal LLC for LLS Capital.

[2026] SGHC(A) 10 explained

Chan Swee Lean & Anor v LLS CAPITAL PTE LTD ([2026] SGHC(A) 10) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 16 April 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure, Abuse of Process, and Credit and Security. 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] SGHC(A) 10 about?

Chan Swee Lean & Anor v LLS CAPITAL PTE LTD ([2026] SGHC(A) 10) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Appeals”, “Abuse of Process — Henderson v Henderson doctrine”, and “Credit and Security — Money and moneylenders — Illegal moneylending”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(A) 10 consider?

The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(A) 10 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 226 and [2025] SGHC 194. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Chan Swee Lean and Two Buffalo Pte Ltd appealed against a High Court decision rejecting their claim that a $2.8 million loan from LLS Capital Pte Ltd was illegal under the Moneylenders Act 2008, which they had raised to resist enforcement of a mortgage over a residential property at 1 Holland Avenue. The appellants also argued abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson doctrine. The Appellate Division dismissed both appeals, finding that the burden of proving illegality had not been discharged and the judge's findings were not plainly wrong, awarding costs of $23,000 to the respondent.

What issues did the Appellate Division address in Chan Swee Lean v LLS Capital Pte Ltd ([2026] SGHC(A) 10)?

The Appellate Division considered whether a $2.8 million loan from LLS Capital to Two Buffalo Pte Ltd constituted illegal moneylending, and applied the Henderson v Henderson abuse-of-process doctrine. See Kee Oon JAD and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD dismissed the appeals on 16 April 2026, with the property at 1 Holland Avenue as security.