T

Toh Jia Yi

This page is a record of reported Singapore judgments that name Toh Jia Yi. 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.

Toh Jia Yi appears as counsel of record in 6 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026), most often before the SGHC.

These cases span several subject areas, most often Intellectual Property and Arbitration, and Toh Jia Yi acted for the claimant in 3 and the defendant in 1.

Reported cases
6
Courts
SGHC, SGCA(I)
Period
May 2023 to April 2026

Source: derived from 6 published Singapore judgments, most recent decision .

Toh Jia Yi — Reported Cases & Litigation Record

How Toh Jia Yi appeared

Counsel for the claimant
3 cases
Counsel for the defendant
1 case
Counsel for the respondent
1 case
Counsel for the claimant and defendant in counterclaim
1 case

Recorded outcomes

Appeal dismissed
1

Disposition recorded in 1 of 6 cases.

What the courts decided

[2023] SGCA(I) 9 Appeal dismissed

“We therefore dismiss the appeal.”

CVV & 10 Ors v CWB · SGCA(I) · · Counsel for the respondent

Parties in these cases

What areas of law does Toh Jia Yi practice?

Intellectual Property 3 cases

Reported between May 2023 and February 2024.

Arbitration 2 cases

Reported between August 2023 and December 2023.

6
Appearances
4
Roles
1
Firm
No
Senior Counsel

Counsel for the defendant (1)

Counsel for the claimant (3)

Counsel for the respondent (1)

Counsel for the claimant and defendant in counterclaim (1)

In the court record

The reported judgments Toh Jia Yi appears in are aggregated on the practice-area court records below, each of which sets out the counsel who appear most often in that area of the reported record.

These appearances also feed the Most Active Lawyers in Singapore, Ranked by Reported Court Cases, the site-wide court-record ranking of Singapore counsel by the number of reported judgments in which they appear.

Rankings

Most active lawyers by reported court cases →