MARSH (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v ALARIC LEE
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 8–14 June 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Ramu Miyapan |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Bird & Bird ATMD LLP, TSMP Law Corporation, Phoon Wuei, Yuan Jingjie |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 21, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Marsh (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Alaric [2026] SGHCR 21 is a General Division of the High Court decision delivered by Assistant Registrar Ramu Miyapan on 10 June 2026, following a hearing on 10 April 2026, in Originating Claim No 1040 of 2025 (Summons No 888 of 2026). The claimant, Marsh (Singapore) Pte Ltd, sought leave, via an application filed 20 March 2026, to amend its Statement of Claim dated 15 December 2025 against its former Managing Director, Lee Alaric, who had resigned on 19 September 2025 after roughly five months in the role; the defendant characterised this as a second bite at the cherry following an unsuccessful interim injunction application before Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, but the amendment was allowed. The judgment cites 7 authorities, 6 of them from Singapore.
[2026] SGHCR 21 explained
MARSH (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v ALARIC LEE ([2026] SGHCR 21) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 10 June 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] SGHCR 21 about?
MARSH (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. v ALARIC LEE ([2026] SGHCR 21) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Amendment of pleadings — Leave to amend statement of claim”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHCR 21 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC(I) 29. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Why did Lee Alaric oppose Marsh (Singapore)'s application to amend its Statement of Claim ([2026] SGHCR 21)?
In Marsh (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Alaric [2026] SGHCR 21, the defendant characterised the amendment as a second bite at the cherry following the failed interim injunction application before Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, fearing it would found fresh interim relief applications.
Cases Cited (7)
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] SGHCR 21)