Restitution
11 cases · February 2025 to December 2025
Overview
Restitution featured in 11 reported judgments in Singapore between February 2025 to December 2025, heard primarily in the High Court (General Division) (9) and the High Court (Appellate Division) (2). Key sub-topics included Unjust enrichment (6), Subrogation (1), Unjust enrichment — Total failure of consideration (1). The most active judges were Debbie Ong Siew Ling (2), Woo Bih Li (2), Mohamed Faizal (2), while leading firms included Audent Chambers LLC (2), Shook Lin & Bok LLP (2), Covenant Chambers LLC (2). 78 lawyers appeared in restitution cases during this period.
Data coverage: between February 2025 to December 2025
Which law firms handle the most Restitution cases in Singapore?
Audent Chambers LLC leads in restitution with 2 cases between February 2025 to December 2025, followed by Shook Lin & Bok LLP (2 cases) and Covenant Chambers LLC (2 cases). 29 firms appeared in restitution cases during this period.
Who are the leading Restitution lawyers in Singapore?
Tan Zhengxian Jordan is the most active restitution lawyer in Singapore with 2 case appearances between February 2025 to December 2025, followed by Leong Hoi Seng Victor (2) and Lim Jun Heng (2). 78 lawyers appeared in restitution cases during this period.
Which judges handle the most Restitution cases in Singapore?
Debbie Ong Siew Ling has handled 2 cases in restitution between February 2025 to December 2025, the most of any Singapore judge. Woo Bih Li (2 cases) and Mohamed Faizal (2 cases) are also among the most active. 14 judges heard restitution cases.
How many restitution cases are heard in Singapore courts?
Between February 2025 to December 2025, 11 reported judgments involved restitution in Singapore courts. The majority were heard in the High Court (General Division) (9 cases).
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore restitution cases?
The main sub-topics in Singapore restitution litigation between February 2025 to December 2025 were Unjust enrichment (6 cases), Subrogation (1 case), Unjust enrichment — Total failure of consideration (1 case), Unjust enrichment — Failure of consideration — Counter-restitution (1 case).