Mary Magdeline Pereira
This page is a record of reported Singapore judgments that name Mary Magdeline Pereira. 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.
Mary Magdeline Pereira appears as counsel of record in 4 reported Singapore judgments (2026), most often before the District Court.
These cases span several subject areas, including Tort, Employment Law and Civil Procedure, and Mary Magdeline Pereira acted for the respondent in 1 and the defendant in 1.
- Reported cases
- 4
- Courts
- District Court, High Court
- Period
- May 2026 to September 2026
Source: derived from 4 published Singapore judgments, most recent decision .
Mary Magdeline Pereira — Reported Cases & Litigation Record
How Mary Magdeline Pereira appeared
- Counsel for the respondent
- 1 case
- Counsel for the defendant
- 1 case
- Counsel for the claimant
- 1 case
- Counsel for the plaintiff
- 1 case
Recorded outcomes
- Appeal allowed
- 1
Outcome recorded for 1 of the 4 cases.
What the courts decided
-
“I allow the appeal.”
High Court · 30 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 203 · Counsel for the respondent · Appeal allowed
Parties in these cases
What areas of law does Mary Magdeline Pereira practice?
Counsel for the respondent (1)
-
The High Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the statutory demand.
High Court · 30 September 2026 · [2026] SGHC 203
Counsel for the defendant (1)
-
The court sentenced him to 10 months' imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane for each proceeded charge, with the imprisonment terms concurrent, giving an aggregate of 10 months' imprisonment and 6…
District Court · 1 September 2026 · [2026] SGDC 274
Counsel for the claimant (1)
-
The court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant costs fixed at $11,577.70 (all-in) on the standard basis, made up of $6,750 for pre-trial work, $2,500 for trial work, $1,000 for post-trial work…
District Court · 9 June 2026 · [2026] SGDC 195
Counsel for the plaintiff (1)
-
The District Court found that Mdm Nirmala failed to prove that APL breached its duty of care and dismissed her action.
District Court · 25 May 2026 · [2026] SGDC 177