Leading Probate and Administration Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
21 reported cases · March 2023 to April 2026
Updated
What did Singapore courts decide in Probate and Administration?
Singapore courts issued 21 reported Probate and Administration judgments between 2023–2026, most in SGHC (9), of the 7 with a parseable operative disposition, the most common was Application dismissed (2), the median monetary award recorded was $2,400,000. This is a descriptive summary of what the courts recorded in reported decisions, not legal advice.
Compiled from 21 reported Probate and Administration 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 21 reported Probate and Administration judgments in Singapore courts (March 2023 to April 2026), WongPartnership LLP is the most active firm by reported case count (3 cases), Ong Xin Ying Samantha 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
Probate and Administration appears in 21 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026). The most common sub-topics are Administration of assets (3), Grant of probate — Revocation (2) and Executors (2). The most active judge by reported case count is Kwek Mean Luck (3 cases) and the most active firm is WongPartnership LLP (3 cases).
Which law firms handle the most Probate and Administration cases in Singapore?
WongPartnership LLP leads in Probate and Administration with 3 cases between March 2023 and April 2026, followed by TSMP Law Corporation (3 cases) and WNLEX LLC (2 cases). 32 firms appeared in Probate and Administration cases during this period.
Who are the leading Probate and Administration lawyers in Singapore?
Ong Xin Ying Samantha is the most active Probate and Administration lawyer in Singapore with 2 case appearances between March 2023 and April 2026, followed by Lee Sien Liang Joseph (2) and Chan Junhao Justin (2).
Which judges handle the most Probate and Administration cases in Singapore?
Kwek Mean Luck has handled 3 Probate and Administration cases between March 2023 and April 2026, the most of any Singapore judge. Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi (3 cases) and Goh Yihan (3 cases) are also among the most active.
How many Probate and Administration cases are reported in Singapore courts?
21 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026) involve Probate and Administration, most often decided by Kwek Mean Luck.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Probate and Administration cases?
The main sub-topics are Administration of assets (3), Grant of probate — Revocation (2) and Executors (2).
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Administration of assets 3 cases
Grant of probate — Revocation 2 cases
Executors 2 cases
Personal representatives 2 cases
Administrator 2 cases
Personal representatives — Liabilities 1 case
Administration of assets — Getting in and investing properly 1 case
Grant of letters of administration 1 case
Intestate succession 1 case
Special and limited grants of administration — Administration 1 case
Personal representatives — Standing 1 case
Distribution of assets — Charitable gifts 1 case
Foreign domicile grants — Resealing 1 case
Foreign domicile grants — Caveat 1 case
Grant of letters of administration — Effect 1 case
Grant of letters of administration — Effect of reseal of foreign grant on caveats 1 case
Grant of letters of administration — Power of court to reseal foreign grant of letters of administration 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.