Leading Banking Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
14 reported cases · February 2023 to September 2026
Updated
What did Singapore courts decide in Banking?
Singapore courts issued 14 reported Banking judgments (2023–2026), most in the High Court (9), two monetary awards were recorded, of $98,787 and $109,000. This is a descriptive summary of what the courts recorded in reported decisions, not legal advice.
Compiled from 14 reported Banking judgments published on eLitigation. Counts and figures are derived from the judgments themselves; the Attorney-General's Chambers is excluded from the counsel and firm counts as the public prosecutor.
Outcome data updated
Across 14 reported Banking judgments in Singapore courts (February 2023 to September 2026), Allen & Gledhill LLP is the most active firm by reported case count (5 cases). The lists below count how often named firms and lawyers appear in reported decisions — a descriptive count of activity, not an assessment of quality or standing.
Overview
Banking appears in 14 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026). The most active judge by reported case count is Goh Yihan (4 cases) and the most active firm is Allen & Gledhill LLP (5 cases).
Which law firms handle the most Banking cases in Singapore?
Allen & Gledhill LLP leads in Banking with 5 cases between February 2023 and September 2026, followed by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (4 cases) and Drew & Napier LLC (3 cases). 22 firms appeared in Banking cases during this period.
Who are the leading Banking lawyers in Singapore?
Seth Yeo Ao-Wen (2 cases), Teo Jim Yang (2 cases) and Hing Shan Shan Blossom (1 case) appear as counsel in reported Banking cases between February 2023 and September 2026.
Which judges handle the most Banking cases in Singapore?
Goh Yihan has handled 4 Banking cases between February 2023 and September 2026, the most of any Singapore judge.
How many Banking cases are reported in Singapore courts?
14 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026) involve Banking, most often decided by Goh Yihan.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Banker’s books — Proceedings — Civil 2 cases
-
The court allowed the application and granted an order under s 175(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 permitting the applicant to inspect and take copies of the respondent's DBS bank statements.
High Court · 4 September 2024 · [2024] SGHC 227 -
The court granted the three applications and made the orders sought, giving the trustees liberty to inspect and take copies of the specified bank records held by each of the three banks.
High Court · 15 February 2023 · [2023] SGHC 33
Secrecy — Exceptions 1 case
-
The High Court allowed the three summonses in part, ordering each bank within 28 days to list and produce defined categories of documents set out in an annex, and dismissed the brother's registrar's…
High Court · 10 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 184
Secrecy — Banking Act 1970 (2020 Rev Ed) 1 case
-
The High Court allowed the three summonses in part, ordering each bank within 28 days to list and produce defined categories of documents set out in an annex, and dismissed the brother's registrar's…
High Court · 10 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 184
Bankers’ books — Proceedings — Interlocutory 1 case
-
The High Court allowed the three summonses in part, ordering each bank within 28 days to list and produce defined categories of documents set out in an annex, and dismissed the brother's registrar's…
High Court · 10 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 184
Performance bonds — Restraining beneficiary from calling on standby letter of credit on ground of unconscionability 1 case
-
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $109,000 all-in in favour of the first respondent, upholding the refusal of an injunction to restrain DJZ's call on the standby letter…
High Court (Appellate Division) · 12 September 2025 · [2025] SGHC(A) 18
Performance bonds — Restraining beneficiary from calling on standby letter of credit on ground of discrepancies in documents tendered 1 case
-
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $109,000 all-in in favour of the first respondent, upholding the refusal of an injunction to restrain DJZ's call on the standby letter…
High Court (Appellate Division) · 12 September 2025 · [2025] SGHC(A) 18
Credit and security — Scope of duty of bank when exercising its right to liquidate collaterals 1 case
-
The court allowed DB's claims against ARJ and Mr Juma as prayed for at Prayers 1 to 3 of the statement of claim, and dismissed the counterclaim.
High Court · 15 August 2025 · [2025] SGHC 163
Appropriation of payments 1 case
-
The Appellate Division dismissed Campbell's appeal in AD 38 in its entirety and allowed Marchmont's appeal in AD 46 in part.
High Court (Appellate Division) · 22 May 2025 · [2025] SGHC(A) 6
Statement of account — Verification clauses — Whether verification clause binding on issuer 1 case
-
Goh Yihan J dismissed Foreland's substantive claim.
High Court · 11 July 2024 · [2024] SGHC 179
Quincecare duty — Juridical basis of the Quincecare duty — Whether bank breached its Quincecare duty 1 case
-
Aedit Abdullah J allowed IPP's claim in part.
High Court · 11 July 2024 · [2024] SGHC 178
Letters of credit — Fraud exception — Irregularities on the face of bills of lading — Whether fraud exception established 1 case
-
Aedit Abdullah J allowed IPP's claim in part.
High Court · 11 July 2024 · [2024] SGHC 178
Letters of credit — Nullity exception — Irregularities on the face of bills of lading — Whether nullity exception established 1 case
-
Aedit Abdullah J allowed IPP's claim in part.
High Court · 11 July 2024 · [2024] SGHC 178
Branch bank — Whether representative office was branch bank — Whether plaintiff had standing to sue 1 case
-
Goh Yihan J dismissed all of BCP's claims against CAO.
High Court · 5 June 2024 · [2024] SGHC 145
Lending and security — Legal mortgages — Whether reference to the “ship” includes “gaming equipment” on board 1 case
-
The High Court dismissed WDL's application, holding that the gaming equipment on board was covered by KfW's mortgage.
High Court · 28 February 2024 · [2024] SGHC 56
Letters of Credit — Fraud Exception 1 case
-
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered UniCredit to pay Glencore costs of $100,000, including disbursements, with the usual consequential orders.
Court of Appeal · 28 November 2023 · [2023] SGCA 41
Letters of credit — Confirming bank 1 case
-
The Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA and Steven Chong JCA) allowed the appeal in part, awarding Kuvera damages of US$98,786.87 and S$11,429.32, made up of US$8,893.96 in…
Court of Appeal · 28 September 2023 · [2023] SGCA 28
Letters of credit — Applicable principle 1 case
-
The Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA and Steven Chong JCA) allowed the appeal in part, awarding Kuvera damages of US$98,786.87 and S$11,429.32, made up of US$8,893.96 in…
Court of Appeal · 28 September 2023 · [2023] SGCA 28
Key Statutes
Court Distribution
Cases
-
The High Court allowed the three summonses in part, ordering each bank within 28 days to list and produce defined categories of documents set out in an annex, and dismissed the brother's registrar's…
High Court · 10 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 184 -
Tribunal Magistrate Joel Tan held that the tribunal had jurisdiction, found that the claimant had been grossly negligent in ignoring the bank's repeated alerts, and dismissed the claim.
Small Claims Tribunal · 12 June 2026 · [2026] SGSCT 11 -
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $109,000 all-in in favour of the first respondent, upholding the refusal of an injunction to restrain DJZ's call on the standby letter…
High Court (Appellate Division) · 12 September 2025 · [2025] SGHC(A) 18 -
The court allowed DB's claims against ARJ and Mr Juma as prayed for at Prayers 1 to 3 of the statement of claim, and dismissed the counterclaim.
High Court · 15 August 2025 · [2025] SGHC 163 -
The Appellate Division dismissed Campbell's appeal in AD 38 in its entirety and allowed Marchmont's appeal in AD 46 in part.
High Court (Appellate Division) · 22 May 2025 · [2025] SGHC(A) 6 -
The court allowed the application and granted an order under s 175(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 permitting the applicant to inspect and take copies of the respondent's DBS bank statements.
High Court · 4 September 2024 · [2024] SGHC 227 -
Goh Yihan J dismissed Foreland's substantive claim.
High Court · 11 July 2024 · [2024] SGHC 179 -
Aedit Abdullah J allowed IPP's claim in part.
High Court · 11 July 2024 · [2024] SGHC 178 -
Goh Yihan J dismissed all of BCP's claims against CAO.
High Court · 5 June 2024 · [2024] SGHC 145 -
The High Court dismissed WDL's application, holding that the gaming equipment on board was covered by KfW's mortgage.
High Court · 28 February 2024 · [2024] SGHC 56 -
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered UniCredit to pay Glencore costs of $100,000, including disbursements, with the usual consequential orders.
Court of Appeal · 28 November 2023 · [2023] SGCA 41 -
Hoo Sheau Peng J convicted the first accused of 180 of his 189 charges and the second accused of 169 of her 178 charges, finding every underlying offence completed.
High Court · 24 October 2023 · [2023] SGHC 299 -
The Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA and Steven Chong JCA) allowed the appeal in part, awarding Kuvera damages of US$98,786.87 and S$11,429.32, made up of US$8,893.96 in…
Court of Appeal · 28 September 2023 · [2023] SGCA 28 -
The court granted the three applications and made the orders sought, giving the trustees liberty to inspect and take copies of the specified bank records held by each of the three banks.
High Court · 15 February 2023 · [2023] SGHC 33
Methodology & disclaimer
Firms and lawyers are ranked by the number of reported Singapore court judgments they appear in, published on eLitigation. Counts reflect appearances in reported decisions only — unreported matters, settlements, and advisory work are not included. This is a descriptive count of activity by reported case volume, not an assessment of quality or standing, and not an endorsement or recommendation of any firm or lawyer. It is information, not legal advice.