Leading Banking Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
8 reported cases · February 2024 to September 2025
Updated
Across 8 reported Banking judgments in Singapore courts (February 2024 to September 2025), Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP is the most active firm by reported case count (3 cases), Hing Shan Shan Blossom is the most active lawyer (1 case appearances). This ranks named firms and lawyers by how often they appear in reported decisions — a descriptive count of activity, not an assessment of quality or standing.
Overview
The dataset records 8 Banking judgments in Singapore between February 2024 and September 2025, ranking the area 36th of 49 practice areas. All 8 were decided in the High Court (SGHC), with 3 in the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)). Recurring issues include performance bonds, letters of credit fraud and nullity exceptions, the Quincecare duty, and credit and security disputes.
Data coverage: between February 2024 and September 2025
Which law firms handle the most Banking cases in Singapore?
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and Allen & Gledhill LLP each appeared in 3 Banking cases between February 2024 and September 2025, followed by LVM Law Chambers LLC with 2 cases. In total, 15 firms appeared in Banking cases during this period.
Who are the leading Banking lawyers in Singapore?
The dataset records 72 lawyers across 8 Banking cases between February 2024 and September 2025, each with a single appearance. They include Teo Jim Yang, Thio Shen Yi, and Marina Chin Li Yuen, reflecting a broadly distributed bar with no dominant individual practitioner.
Which judges handle the most Banking cases in Singapore?
Goh Yihan handled 3 Banking cases between February 2024 and September 2025, the most of any Singapore judge in the dataset. Steven Chong, Kannan Ramesh, and See Kee Oon each decided 1 case, among the 10 judges recorded for this area.
How many Banking cases are heard in Singapore courts?
The dataset records 8 Banking judgments between February 2024 and September 2025. All 8 were decided in the High Court (SGHC), with 3 of those in the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)), the primary forum for these disputes.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Banking cases?
The 8 Banking judgments span eleven sub-topics, each appearing once, including performance bonds restraining calls on standby letters of credit, the Quincecare duty, letters of credit fraud and nullity exceptions, appropriation of payments, and credit and security.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Performance bonds — Restraining beneficiary from calling on standby letter of credit on ground of unconscionability 1 case
Performance bonds — Restraining beneficiary from calling on standby letter of credit on ground of discrepancies in documents tendered 1 case
Credit and security — Scope of duty of bank when exercising its right to liquidate collaterals 1 case
Appropriation of payments 1 case
Banker’s books — Proceedings — Civil 1 case
Quincecare duty — Juridical basis of the Quincecare duty — Whether bank breached its Quincecare duty 1 case
Letters of credit — Fraud exception — Irregularities on the face of bills of lading — Whether fraud exception established 1 case
Letters of credit — Nullity exception — Irregularities on the face of bills of lading — Whether nullity exception established 1 case
Statement of account — Verification clauses — Whether verification clause binding on issuer 1 case
Branch bank — Whether representative office was branch bank — Whether plaintiff had standing to sue 1 case
Lending and security — Legal mortgages — Whether reference to the “ship” includes “gaming equipment” on board 1 case
Key Statutes
Court Distribution
Cases
Methodology & disclaimer
Firms and lawyers are ranked by the number of reported Supreme 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.