Leading Injunctions Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore

The Court of Appeal (Judith Prakash SJ and Lady Arden IJ) dismissed the appeal on all grounds, leaving the worldwide freezing order in place.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the worldwide freezing order but allowed it in part, varying the ancillary disclosure order so that the defendants need only disclose assets exceeding…

The High Court allowed SUM 3555 in part, setting aside the disputed ancillary disclosure orders, and otherwise dismissed it; SUM 3645 was dismissed.

The court allowed the claims in part and dismissed Prisma's counterclaims.

Philip Jeyaretnam J allowed the application in part.

The court granted an easement of right of way over the service road to the loading bay and bin centre, free of charge for refuse collection vehicles and, for other vehicles, on payment of charges no…

The court declined to imply an easement under s 99 but held that it will create an easement of way under s 97A once the MCST satisfies s 97A(2)(c).

The court granted an easement of right of way over the service road to the loading bay and bin centre, free of charge for refuse collection vehicles and, for other vehicles, on payment of charges no…

The court declined to imply an easement under s 99 but held that it will create an easement of way under s 97A once the MCST satisfies s 97A(2)(c).

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in its entirety and ordered EH to pay CJY costs of $35,000 all-in, including disbursements, with the usual consequential orders.

Wong Li Kok, Alex JC dismissed the application, finding no unconscionability and no basis to reduce the call, and ordered costs of $22,000 (excluding disbursements) to the church.

The High Court dismissed the wife's appeal, holding that she was not entitled to the injunction, and said it would hear the parties on costs.

Goh Yihan J dismissed the claimant's application for interim injunctions.

Philip Jeyaretnam J dismissed the originating application entirely, with costs to the defendants against Gazelle, to be fixed by the court if not agreed within 14 days.

The court allowed both of the plaintiffs' claims and dismissed the directors' fees and services remuneration counterclaims, but allowed the counterclaim for injunctions, so the defendants succeeded…

Chan Seng Onn SJ allowed the buyer and the bank to intervene, but made no variation to the injunction, holding that none was needed.

Sushil Nair J dismissed the application on 3 March 2026 and later gave full grounds.

Chan Seng Onn SJ dismissed Anlima's application and upheld the ex parte interim injunction.

The court allowed the applications and set aside both the worldwide freezing injunction and the prohibitory injunction.

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in its entirety and ordered EH to pay CJY costs of $35,000 all-in, including disbursements, with the usual consequential orders.

The court allowed TrueCoin's application and granted the anti-suit injunction, permanently restraining Techteryx from continuing to pursue the Hong Kong action against TrueCoin, with liberty to apply.

The High Court discharged both interim injunctions granted ex parte in SUM 229 on 29 January 2024, setting them aside.

The High Court dismissed the application, granted the claimants liberty to apply once they had a judgment debt to execute, and made no order as to costs.

The High Court dismissed Summons No 3619 of 2023 and refused all the interim injunctions, including the springboard injunction.

Wong Li Kok, Alex JC dismissed the application, finding no unconscionability and no basis to reduce the call, and ordered costs of $22,000 (excluding disbursements) to the church.

Philip Jeyaretnam J dismissed the originating application entirely, with costs to the defendants against Gazelle, to be fixed by the court if not agreed within 14 days.

Philip Jeyaretnam J dismissed the originating application entirely, with costs to the defendants against Gazelle, to be fixed by the court if not agreed within 14 days.

The court ordered that the enforcement of the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages be held over until the Estonian proceedings between the plaintiff and the first defendant were resolved.