Ker Yanguang
This page is a record of reported Singapore judgments that name Ker Yanguang. 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.
Ker Yanguang appears as counsel of record in 10 reported Singapore judgments (2024–2026), most often before the High Court.
These cases span several subject areas, most often Civil Procedure, and Ker Yanguang acted for the respondent in 3 and the defendant in 2.
- Reported cases
- 10
- Courts
- High Court, High Court (Appellate Division), Court of Appeal, High Court Registrar, Singapore International Commercial Court, Court of Appeal (International)
- Period
- June 2024 to September 2026
Source: derived from 10 published Singapore judgments, most recent decision .
Ker Yanguang — Reported Cases & Litigation Record
How Ker Yanguang appeared
- Counsel for the respondent
- 3 cases
- Counsel for the defendant
- 2 cases
- Counsel for the third party
- 1 case
- Counsel for the first, second and twelfth defendants
- 1 case
- Counsel for the appellant
- 1 case
- Counsel for the claimant
- 1 case
- Counsel for the third defendant
- 1 case
Recorded outcomes
- Application dismissed
- 2
Outcome recorded for 2 of the 10 cases.
What the courts decided
-
“In conclusion, the Stay Applications are dismissed.”
High Court · 12 June 2026 · [2026] SGHC 124 · Counsel for the first, second and twelfth defendants · Application dismissed -
“…we dismiss the Application and order the applicants to pay the following costs to the respondents:(a) $12,000 (all-in) to the first respondent;(b) $10,000 (all-in) to the fifth respondent; and (c) $12,000 (all-in) to the sixth respondent.”
High Court (Appellate Division) · 18 March 2026 · [2026] SGHC(A) 8 · Counsel for the respondent · Application dismissed
Parties in these cases
What areas of law does Ker Yanguang practice?
Civil Procedure 6 cases
Reported between June 2024 and June 2026.
Counsel for the third party (1)
-
The High Court allowed the application in HC/SUM 2669/2026 and ordered that three insolvency practitioners of KPMG Services Pte Ltd be appointed joint and several interim judicial managers of the…
High Court · 25 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 200
Counsel for the first, second and twelfth defendants (1)
-
Kristy Tan J dismissed the Stay Applications, refusing both the forum non conveniens stay and the case management stay, and said she would hear the parties on costs.
High Court · 12 June 2026 · [2026] SGHC 124
Counsel for the respondent (3)
-
The Appellate Division dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal.
High Court (Appellate Division) · 18 March 2026 · [2026] SGHC(A) 8 -
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for permission to appeal and ordered costs of USD 5,000 all-in against Udenna.
Court of Appeal (International) · 27 November 2024 · [2024] SGCA(I) 9 -
The court found that the couple held equal beneficial interests in the property and dismissed the application, refusing both the declaration and the setting aside of the enforcement order.
High Court · 10 October 2024 · [2024] SGHC 252
Counsel for the appellant (1)
-
The Court of Appeal dismissed both the criminal motion and the appeal.
Court of Appeal · 10 March 2026 · [2026] SGCA 10
Counsel for the defendant (2)
-
The assistant registrar dismissed SUM 1318 and upheld the substituted service on Mr Wo Quan, ordering him to pay the claimants costs fixed at $10,000, all-in.
High Court Registrar · 5 August 2025 · [2025] SGHCR 26 -
The court dismissed OA 642 and discharged the interim order.
High Court · 22 October 2024 · [2024] SGHC 266
Counsel for the claimant (1)
-
The court allowed the application in part, extending the validity of the originating application for two months from 30 January 2025 rather than the six months sought, with costs in the proceedings.
Singapore International Commercial Court · 4 February 2025 · [2025] SGHC(I) 2
Counsel for the third defendant (1)
-
Wong Li Kok, Alex JC allowed KTP's appeal in part and struck out the plaintiff's claim against KTP as time-barred; KTP's other striking-out grounds were not pursued further.
High Court · 10 June 2024 · [2024] SGHC 149