Leading Evidence Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
42 reported cases · January 2024 to July 2026
Updated
What did Singapore courts decide in Evidence?
Singapore courts issued 42 reported Evidence judgments between 2024–2026, most in SGHC (29), of the 9 with a parseable operative disposition, the most common was Appeal allowed (3), the median monetary award recorded was $20,000. This is a descriptive summary of what the courts recorded in reported decisions, not legal advice.
Compiled from 42 reported Evidence 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 42 reported Evidence judgments in Singapore courts (January 2024 to July 2026), Attorney-General's Chambers is the most active firm by reported case count (11 cases), Tan Jun Yin is the most active lawyer (2 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
Evidence is a recognised practice area in Singapore's reported caselaw, with 39 judgments handed down between January 2024 and May 2026, ranking 13th of 49 practice areas in a dataset of 1,374 cases. Most were heard in the High Court (SGHC), with the remainder before the Court of Appeal (SGCA), the Family Court (SGFC), the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)), the District Court (SGDC), the Singapore International Commercial Court (SGHC(I)), and the international Court of Appeal (SGCA(I)). The reported matters span admissibility, proof, witnesses, and presumptions.
The most frequent sub-topics among these 39 cases were witness corroboration (3), hearsay admissibility (3), admissibility of evidence generally (3), onus of proof (3), and presumptions of proof (2). Across the period, 32 judges, 65 firms, and 212 individual lawyers appeared in Evidence matters, with the Attorney-General's Chambers featuring most often among the firms.
Data coverage: between January 2024 and May 2026
Which law firms handle the most Evidence cases in Singapore?
The Attorney-General's Chambers leads in Evidence matters with 11 cases between January 2024 and May 2026, followed by Drew & Napier LLC (4 cases) and WongPartnership LLP (3 cases). In total, 65 firms appeared in Singapore Evidence cases during this period.
Who are the leading Evidence lawyers in Singapore?
In Evidence cases, the most active lawyers each recorded 2 appearances between January 2024 and May 2026, including Tan Jun Yin, Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas, and Teo Siu Ming. In total, 212 lawyers appeared in Singapore Evidence cases during this period.
Which judges handle the most Evidence cases in Singapore?
Christopher Tan has handled 4 Evidence cases between January 2024 and May 2026, the most of any Singapore judge in this area. Steven Chong (3 cases), Mohamed Faizal (3 cases), and Valerie Thean (3 cases) are also among the most active in deciding Evidence matters during this period.
How many Evidence cases are heard in Singapore courts?
The dataset records 39 Evidence judgments between January 2024 and May 2026. Most were decided in the High Court (SGHC), with the remainder across the Court of Appeal, the Family and District Courts, the Appellate Division, and the Singapore International Commercial Court.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Evidence cases?
Among the 39 Evidence cases, the leading sub-topics are witness corroboration (3 cases), hearsay admissibility (3), admissibility of evidence (3), and onus of proof (3). Presumptions and adverse inferences each appear in 2 cases among the reported catchwords.
Is Evidence a common area of litigation in Singapore?
Evidence ranks 13th of 49 practice areas in the dataset, with 39 reported judgments, about 2.8% of the 1,374 cases tracked between January 2024 and May 2026. The most common sub-topics are witness corroboration, hearsay admissibility, and onus of proof.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Adverse inferences 3 cases
Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay 3 cases
Witnesses — Corroboration 3 cases
Admissibility of evidence 3 cases
Proof of evidence — Onus of proof 3 cases
Proof of evidence — Presumptions 2 cases
Adverse inferences — Section 21(2) of the Employment Claims Act 2016 1 case
Witnesses — Evidence by video link — Practice Direction 59 1 case
Witnesses — Credibility 1 case
Hearsay Evidence of Child 1 case
Principles — Functions of judge — Responsibilities of judge in managing cases involving self-represented persons 1 case
Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay — Section 32(1)(k) Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) 1 case
Admissibility of evidence — Relevancy of court judgments — Previous judgment on mental capacity — Sections 42 to 45 Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) 1 case
Witnesses — Examination — Cross-examination of witness called by co-defendant 1 case
Witnesses — Competency — How witness with speech impediments may give evidence 1 case
Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay — Business Record Exception 1 case
Admissibility of evidence — Secondary evidence when the original subdivision plan has been lost 1 case
Adverse inferences — Whether adverse inferences appropriate without order for discovery 1 case
Adverse Inference 1 case
Proof of evidence — Standard of proof 1 case
Witnesses — Examination 1 case
Principles — Functions of judge 1 case
Witnesses — Privilege 1 case
Presumptions — Accurate communication of electronic record 1 case
Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay — Requirement to give notice of reliance on hearsay evidence — Whether prejudice caused by curing non-compliance with notice requirement — Section 32(4)(b) Evidence Act 1893 1 case
Witnesses — Examination — Recantation of concessions made under cross-examination 1 case
Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay — Exceptions 1 case
Admissibility of evidence — Similar fact evidence 1 case
Proof of evidence — Defendant elects to call no evidence — Whether applicable test for plaintiff to discharge essential elements of claim is prima facie case 1 case
Presumptions — Effect of presumptions in relation to electronic records — Section 116A of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) 1 case
Key Statutes
Court Distribution
Cases
Page 1 of 2Methodology & 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.