Francis Chan Wei Wen
This page is a record of reported Singapore judgments that name Francis Chan Wei Wen. It is not a directory listing. Names and firms appear as they were recorded in each judgment at the time. For current practising status and firm, see the Legal Services Regulatory Authority directory.
Francis Chan Wei Wen appears as counsel of record in 4 reported Singapore judgments (2024–2026), most often before the High Court.
These cases span several subject areas, including Conflict of Laws, Tort and Land, and Francis Chan Wei Wen acted for the defendant in 1 and the applicant in 1.
- Reported cases
- 4
- Courts
- High Court, District Court
- Period
- June 2024 to September 2026
Source: derived from 4 published Singapore judgments, most recent decision .
Francis Chan Wei Wen — Reported Cases & Litigation Record
How Francis Chan Wei Wen appeared
- Counsel for the defendant
- 1 case
- Counsel for the applicant
- 1 case
- Counsel for the appellant
- 1 case
- Counsel for the claimant
- 1 case
Recorded outcomes
- Application allowed
- 1
- Claim dismissed
- 1
Outcome recorded for 2 of the 4 cases.
What the courts decided
-
“I allowed the application and dismissed the counterclaim.”
District Court · 10 September 2026 · [2026] SGDC 285 · Counsel for the applicant · Application allowed -
“…the claim is dismissed with costs payable to the defendants.”
High Court · 14 June 2024 · [2024] SGHC 154 · Counsel for the claimant · Claim dismissed
Parties in these cases
What areas of law does Francis Chan Wei Wen practice?
Counsel for the defendant (1)
-
The High Court allowed the claim, finding that the sums were loans that had to be repaid, and held that $321,116.40 was outstanding and due to the claimant.
High Court · 24 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 196
Counsel for the applicant (1)
-
The District Court allowed the application and dismissed the counterclaim.
District Court · 10 September 2026 · [2026] SGDC 285
Counsel for the appellant (1)
-
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Mr Le had not shown any other forum to be distinctly more appropriate than Singapore, so no stay of the counterclaim was ordered.
High Court · 4 December 2025 · [2025] SGHC 240
Counsel for the claimant (1)
-
The court dismissed the claim, finding that although the firm owed the claimant a duty of care, it acted reasonably throughout and was not negligent.
High Court · 14 June 2024 · [2024] SGHC 154