Watershed Law LLC
This page is a record of reported Singapore judgments that name Watershed Law LLC. It is not a directory listing. Names, firm names and counsel appear as they were recorded in each judgment at the time. For current lawyers and contact details, see the Legal Services Regulatory Authority directory or the firm's website.
Watershed Law LLC appears in 3 reported Singapore judgments (2025–2026), most often before the High Court.
These cases are classified under Companies and Tort, and Watershed Law LLC acted for the third party in 2 and the defendant in 1.
- Reported cases
- 3
- Courts
- High Court, Magistrate Court
- Period
- January 2025 to January 2026
Source: derived from 3 published Singapore judgments, most recent decision .
Watershed Law LLC — Reported Cases & Litigation History
How Watershed Law LLC appeared
- Counsel for the third party
- 2 cases
- Counsel for the defendant
- 1 case
Recorded outcomes
- Claim dismissed
- 1
- Application dismissed
- 1
Outcome recorded for 2 of the 3 cases.
What the courts decided
-
“I therefore dismiss the claim against both Defendants as the Claimant has failed to prove that they were responsible for publishing the Statements.”
Magistrate Court · 27 January 2026 · [2026] SGMC 1 · Counsel for the defendant · Claim dismissed -
“I dismiss the Application.”
High Court · 23 December 2025 · [2025] SGHC 259 · Counsel for the third party · Application dismissed
Parties in these cases
What areas of law does Watershed Law LLC specialize in?
Counsel named in these judgments (2)
Lawyers recorded as counsel from Watershed Law LLC in at least one reported judgment, with the years they appear. Not a current staff list.
All reported cases (3)
-
The District Judge dismissed the claim against both defendants because the claimant had not proved that either of them was responsible for publishing the statements.
Magistrate Court · 27 January 2026 · [2026] SGMC 1 -
The High Court dismissed the moratorium application.
High Court · 23 December 2025 · [2025] SGHC 259 -
The court allowed the application and ordered NHL to be wound up, finding no substantial and bona fide dispute over the debt and no genuine cross-claim, and that NHL was presumed insolvent under s…
High Court · 28 January 2025 · [2025] SGHC 16