Leading Insolvency Law Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore

177 reported cases · January 2023 to September 2026

Updated

What did Singapore courts decide in Insolvency Law?

Singapore courts issued 177 reported Insolvency Law judgments (2023–2026), most in the High Court (128), of the 43 whose outcome could be read from the judgment, the most common was Appeal dismissed (16), the median monetary award recorded was $57,500. This is a descriptive summary of what the courts recorded in reported decisions, not legal advice.

Reported cases 177 (2023–2026)
By year 2026 (31) · 2025 (43) · 2024 (60) · 2023 (43)
By court High Court (128) · Court of Appeal (22) · High Court Registrar (16) · High Court (Appellate Division) (5) · Singapore International Commercial Court (5) · High Court (Family Division) (1)
Outcomes (43 judgments) Appeal dismissed (16) · Appeal allowed (7) · Application dismissed (6) · Application granted (5) · Application allowed (3) · Appeal allowed in part (2) · Application allowed in part (1) · Claim allowed (1) · Claim allowed in part (1) · Convicted (1)
Median monetary award $57,500 (across 6 awards)

Compiled from 177 reported Insolvency Law 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 177 reported Insolvency Law judgments in Singapore courts (January 2023 to September 2026), Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP is the most active firm by reported case count (30 cases), Han Guangyuan Keith is the most active lawyer (13 case appearances). The lists below count how often named firms and lawyers appear in reported decisions — a descriptive count of activity, not an assessment of quality or standing.

Overview

Insolvency Law appears in 177 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026). The most common sub-topics are Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings (8), Avoidance of transactions — Transactions at an undervalue (8) and Winding up — Grounds for petition (7). The most active judge by reported case count is Goh Yihan (36 cases) and the most active firm is Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (30 cases).

Which law firms handle the most Insolvency Law cases in Singapore?

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP leads in Insolvency Law with 30 cases between January 2023 and September 2026, followed by Allen & Gledhill LLP (29 cases) and Shook Lin & Bok LLP (28 cases). 146 firms appeared in Insolvency Law cases during this period.

Who are the leading Insolvency Law lawyers in Singapore?

Han Guangyuan Keith is the most active Insolvency Law lawyer in Singapore with 13 case appearances between January 2023 and September 2026, followed by Lye Yu Min (9).

Which judges handle the most Insolvency Law cases in Singapore?

Goh Yihan has handled 36 Insolvency Law cases between January 2023 and September 2026, the most of any Singapore judge. Kannan Ramesh (20 cases) and Sundaresh Menon (16 cases) follow.

How many Insolvency Law cases are reported in Singapore courts?

177 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026) involve Insolvency Law, most often decided by Goh Yihan.

What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Insolvency Law cases?

The main sub-topics are Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings (8), Avoidance of transactions — Transactions at an undervalue (8) and Winding up — Grounds for petition (7).

Case Volume by Year

43
23
60
24
43
25
31
26
2023–2026

Key Issues & Sub-Topics

Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings 8 cases

Avoidance of transactions — Transactions at an undervalue 8 cases

Winding up — Grounds for petition 7 cases

Bankruptcy — Trustee in bankruptcy 5 cases

  • The court made the bankruptcy orders and ordered that the A&M Nominees be appointed as joint and several private trustees of both debtors' bankruptcy estates.

    High Court Registrar · 14 August 2026 · [2026] SGHCR 33
  • The Assistant Registrar dismissed Summons No 940 of 2026.

    High Court Registrar · 1 July 2026 · [2026] SGHCR 23
  • The High Court allowed the trustees' application in OA 672, declaring that Mr Mishra did not have the leave of court needed to commence the arbitration and restraining him from pursuing it against…

    High Court · 4 November 2025 · [2025] SGHC 218
  • Philip Jeyaretnam J granted the bankruptcy orders and appointed the two BDO nominees, Mr Leow Quek Shiong and Ms Seah Roh Lin, as the claimants' private trustees in bankruptcy, rejecting a joint…

    High Court · 30 December 2024 · [2024] SGHC 328
  • The court dismissed RBI's application in its entirety.

    High Court · 29 September 2023 · [2023] SGHC 274

Winding up — Liquidator 5 cases

Winding up — Disputed debt 4 cases

Winding up — Standing 4 cases

Bankruptcy — Statutory demand 4 cases

  • The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in its entirety, agreeing with the Judge that Lee had raised no triable issue, and fixed costs at $32,000 inclusive of disbursements, with the usual…

    High Court (Appellate Division) · 1 April 2026 · [2026] SGHC(A) 9
  • The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, leaving the statutory demand in place, and ordered Mr Chia to pay Mdm Tan costs fixed at $20,000 (all in) on an indemnity basis, with the usual…

    High Court (Appellate Division) · 2 December 2024 · [2024] SGHC(A) 36
  • Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Assistant Registrar's dismissal of the application to set aside the statutory demand.

    High Court · 20 August 2024 · [2024] SGHC 216
  • Chua Lee Ming J dismissed both OA 421 and OSB 38 and ordered SCP and Mr Sim each to pay costs fixed at $5,000 plus disbursements.

    High Court · 26 September 2023 · [2023] SGHC 269

Winding up — Winding-up order 4 cases

Avoidance of transactions — Unfair preferences 4 cases

Bankruptcy 4 cases

  • The High Court dismissed the application.

    High Court · 1 July 2025 · [2025] SGHC 118
  • The court dismissed Ms Chan's applications in SUM 4315 and SUM 4316, leaving the trustee's admissions of SME's proof and of the Jannie Sum and loan repayment in place.

    High Court · 19 February 2025 · [2025] SGHC 27
  • Aedit Abdullah J held that s 328(1) empowers the court to give prospective consent to a proposed disposition between a bankruptcy application and a bankruptcy order.

    High Court · 26 February 2024 · [2024] SGHC 52
  • The High Court (Chua Lee Ming J) granted the applications and allowed the orders sought.

    High Court · 8 May 2023 · [2023] SGHC 131

Winding up — Unable to pay debts 4 cases

Avoidance of transactions — Transactions defrauding creditors 3 cases

Avoidance of transactions — Dispositions of property after commencement of insolvency proceedings 3 cases

Administration of insolvent estates 3 cases

Judicial management — Extension of time 3 cases

Cross-border insolvency — Recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings — Recognition of foreign solvent liquidation proceedings 3 cases

Winding up 3 cases

Bankruptcy — Liquidated sum — Section 311(1)(b) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 2 cases

Winding up — Proof of debt 2 cases

Winding up — Grounds for petition — Just and equitable jurisdiction 2 cases

Cross-border insolvency 2 cases

Avoidance of transactions — Intent to defraud 2 cases

Bankruptcy — Interim order 2 cases

  • The Assistant Registrar dismissed the application in its entirety on 3 March 2025.

    High Court Registrar · 8 May 2025 · [2025] SGHCR 13
  • Mohamed Faizal JC dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the proposal was neither serious nor viable and was merely seeking to delay the inevitable.

    High Court · 10 September 2024 · [2024] SGHC 232

Winding up — Winding-up order — Discretion to order winding up 2 cases

  • The High Court granted the winding-up application and made the winding-up order on 3 January 2025, and on 27 January 2025 it dismissed the company's application to stay the order pending appeal.

    High Court · 10 February 2025 · [2025] SGHC 21
  • The court refused the adjournment and allowed all three winding-up applications, making a winding-up order against each of Bob TX Food Empire Pte Ltd, Valulogistics Pte Ltd and Valusports Pte Ltd.

    High Court · 18 December 2024 · [2024] SGHC 305

Judicial management — Whether judicial management order should be extended 2 cases

Judicial management — Whether time to put forward statement of proposals should be extended 2 cases

Judicial management — Judicial management order 2 cases

  • The High Court allowed the application and granted an order in terms of OA 170, placing Boldtek under judicial management with the proposed judicial managers.

    High Court · 8 April 2024 · [2024] SGHC 98
  • The High Court allowed the Company's application, made the judicial management order and appointed Mr Tam as judicial manager.

    High Court · 8 September 2023 · [2023] SGHC 253

Judicial management — Appointment of judicial manager 2 cases

  • The High Court allowed the application and granted an order in terms of OA 170, placing Boldtek under judicial management with the proposed judicial managers.

    High Court · 8 April 2024 · [2024] SGHC 98
  • The High Court allowed the Company's application, made the judicial management order and appointed Mr Tam as judicial manager.

    High Court · 8 September 2023 · [2023] SGHC 253

Key Statutes

Restructuring and Dissolution Act
cited in 163 cases
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act
cited in 162 cases
cited in 91 cases
cited in 36 cases
Insolvency Act
cited in 16 cases
cited in 14 cases
cited in 13 cases
cited in 12 cases
cited in 9 cases
cited in 8 cases
UK Insolvency Act
cited in 8 cases
cited in 6 cases
cited in 6 cases
Australian Corporations Act
cited in 6 cases
cited in 5 cases

Court Distribution

Cases

Page 1 of 8

Methodology & disclaimer

Firms and lawyers are ranked by the number of reported Singapore 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.