Leading Restitution Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
40 reported cases · February 2023 to October 2026
Updated
What did Singapore courts decide in Restitution?
Singapore courts issued 40 reported Restitution judgments between 2023–2026, most in SGHC (28), of the 9 with a parseable operative disposition, the most common was Appeal dismissed (3). This is a descriptive summary of what the courts recorded in reported decisions, not legal advice.
Compiled from 40 reported Restitution 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 40 reported Restitution judgments in Singapore courts (February 2023 to October 2026), Shook Lin & Bok LLP is the most active firm by reported case count (5 cases), Lee Sien Liang Joseph is the most active lawyer (4 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
Restitution appears in 40 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026). The most common sub-topics are Unjust enrichment (18), Failure of consideration — Total failure of consideration (4) and Unjust enrichment — Total failure of consideration (4). The most active judge by reported case count is Mohamed Faizal (4 cases) and the most active firm is Shook Lin & Bok LLP (5 cases).
Which law firms handle the most Restitution cases in Singapore?
Shook Lin & Bok LLP leads in Restitution with 5 cases between February 2023 and October 2026, followed by Covenant Chambers LLC (5 cases) and Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (4 cases). 78 firms appeared in Restitution cases during this period.
Who are the leading Restitution lawyers in Singapore?
Lee Sien Liang Joseph is the most active Restitution lawyer in Singapore with 4 case appearances between February 2023 and October 2026, followed by Lin Ruizi (3) and Stuart Andrew Peter (3).
Which judges handle the most Restitution cases in Singapore?
Mohamed Faizal has handled 4 Restitution cases between February 2023 and October 2026, the most of any Singapore judge. Goh Yihan (4 cases) and Debbie Ong Siew Ling (3 cases) are also among the most active.
How many Restitution cases are reported in Singapore courts?
40 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026) involve Restitution, most often decided by Mohamed Faizal.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Restitution cases?
The main sub-topics are Unjust enrichment (18), Failure of consideration — Total failure of consideration (4) and Unjust enrichment — Total failure of consideration (4).
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Unjust enrichment 18 cases
Failure of consideration — Total failure of consideration 4 cases
Unjust enrichment — Total failure of consideration 4 cases
Change of position 3 cases
Subrogation 2 cases
Unjust enrichment — Contribution from co-debtor 2 cases
Failure of consideration 2 cases
Unjust enrichment — Failure of consideration — Counter-restitution 2 cases
Mistake — Mistake of fact 2 cases
Unjust enrichment — Whether limitation period or laches applicable 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Whether claim in unjust enrichment available where there are other possible causes of action 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Unjust factors 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Failure of basis — Recovery of deposits 1 case
Subrogation — Section 2 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Whether claim disclosed reasonable cause of action — Whether claim factually unsustainable — Whether payment made pursuant to valid contract — Whether claimant taking inconsistent positions 1 case
Mistake — Mistake of fact — Whether mistaken payment or mistake in formation of contract 1 case
Ministerial receipt 1 case
Subrogation — Securities in the form of ship mortgages granted to lender — Subrogation to extinguished securities in equity — Subrogation to extinguished securities under s 2 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 1 case
Enrichment — At the expense of — Requirement of direct enrichment — Exception for coordinated transactions — Whether it would be unrealistic to consider the transactions separately 1 case
Unjust enrichment — At the expense of 1 case
Failure of consideration — Whether failure of consideration total or partial — Whether incidental or collateral benefits can be disregarded 1 case
Failure of consideration — Total failure of consideration — Essential bargain between contracting parties — Whether benefits conferred were essential or incidental 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Subsidiarity principle 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Defence of change of position 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Proprietary restitution 1 case
Duress 1 case
Undue influence 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Whether proprietary remedies could be obtained for a claim in unjust enrichment 1 case
Absence of consideration 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.