How does an appeal work?
Follows an appeal from start to finish: when permission to appeal is needed and when it is refused, choosing the right appeal court, time limits and extensions of time, fresh evidence on appeal, and when an appellate court will interfere with the decision below, first in civil cases and then in criminal ones.
12 cases, read in order · Updated
Legal information from the judgments, not legal advice. Disclaimer
-
Step 1: Zhu Su v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others
Permission to appeal turns on whether an order is final: the Court of Appeal held an order under s 244 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 completely determines the parties' rights, so appealing it needs no permission.
The rights are completely determined when a court grants or refuses the relevant order(s) under s 244 of the IRDA.
From the judgment Is a court order requiring directors to disclose dealings with a company in liquidation a final order?
Yes. The Court of Appeal held an order under s 244 of the IRDA is final, so no permission to appeal was needed, and dismissed both applications for permission.
Court of Appeal · 10 May 2024 · [2024] SGCA 14 · Read the case
-
Step 2: Nature One Dairy (Australia) Pte. Ltd. v Bicheno Investments Pty. Ltd.
An interlocutory order needs permission, given only on three grounds: the Court of Appeal held an order appointing interim judicial managers interlocutory, found no prima facie error and no question of general principle or importance, and refused permission.
For these reasons, we agreed with the parties that the IJM order was an interlocutory order within the meaning of paragraph 3(l) of the Fifth Schedule to the SCJA. Consequently, permission to appeal was required to appeal the order.
From the judgment Is an order appointing interim judicial managers open to appeal without permission?
No. The Court of Appeal held the order was interlocutory, as it does not finally dispose of the parties' rights, so permission was needed; finding no prima facie error, it dismissed the permission application and the appeal.
Court of Appeal · 25 October 2024 · [2024] SGCA 44 · Read the case
-
Step 3: Pop Holdings Pte. Ltd. v Teo Ban Lim and others
An error alone does not earn permission: the Court of Appeal agreed the Appellate Division erred on a point of law of public importance, but refused POP permission because POP had failed to prove its loss anyway.
As the point of law raised by POP had no bearing on the outcome of the case, it furnished no basis for POP to be given permission to appeal
From the judgment Can a deceived share buyer recover damages without proving what lower price it would have paid?
No. The buyer failed to prove its loss under the lower-price scenario it relied on, so the Court of Appeal refused permission for a further appeal and dismissed the application.
Court of Appeal · 16 October 2025 · [2025] SGCA 51 · Read the case
-
Step 4: Tan Beng Hui Carolyn v The Law Society of Singapore
An appeal must go to the right court: the Court of Appeal held a lawyer's appeal from a review of her disciplinary penalty under s 95 of the Legal Profession Act belonged in the Appellate Division, and lacked merit anyway.
In summary, the appeal should have been made to the Appellate Division, and it was in any event completely without merit.
From the judgment Is a lawyer's court review of a professional disciplinary penalty an administrative law case for appeal purposes?
No, here. The Court of Appeal held that a s 95 review is a statutory review of a penalty, not judicial review, so the appeal belonged in the Appellate Division; it dismissed the appeal as without merit anyway.
Court of Appeal · 22 February 2023 · [2023] SGCA 7 · Read the case
-
Step 5: Avra International DMCC v Dava Pte. Ltd.
Doubt over permission does not stop the clock: the Court of Appeal refused Avra a declaration as insurance, held the usual 14-day timeline for a notice of appeal applied, but extended time as earlier dicta may have caused uncertainty.
the proper course would have been for Avra to follow the usual timelines (ie, to file its notice of appeal within 14 days of the Judge’s decision on 29 July 2025) given that there was no genuine uncertainty surrounding the requirement of permission.
From the judgment Should a party seek a declaration that it needs no permission to appeal when the law is settled?
No. Without genuine uncertainty, seeking one amounts to asking the court for insurance and abuses its process; the Court of Appeal refused the declaration but granted the application in part, extending time to file the notice of appeal.
Court of Appeal · 26 November 2025 · [2025] SGCA 53 · Read the case
-
Step 6: Marchmont Pte Ltd v Campbell Hospitality Pte Ltd and others
Time to appeal runs from the decision: the Appellate Division held the judge decided Marchmont's entitlement to costs only on 23 May 2024, so its notice of appeal filed within 28 days of that was in time.
we think that the Judge first gave his decision on 23 May that Marchmont was entitled to costs
From the judgment When does time to appeal start if a judge decides liability first and costs entitlement later?
From the costs decision. The Appellate Division held entitlement to costs was decided only at the later hearing, so the appeal was in time and not on costs alone, and dismissed the striking-out application.
High Court (Appellate Division) · 26 September 2024 · [2024] SGHC(A) 30 · Read the case
-
Step 7: Shaw Towers Realty (Pte) Limited v Chief Assessor
An extension of time to appeal weighs delay, reasons, prospects and prejudice: the High Court held the Valuation Review Board's decision was not appealable and, even if it were, refused an extension for unexplained delay and a hopeless appeal.
Given that the Appellant was unable to provide any satisfactory explanation for its delay and that its intended appeal was in any event hopeless, I did not find it necessary to make any findings on the issue of prejudice to the Respondent.
From the judgment Can a property owner appeal a Valuation Review Board's refusal to let it amend its appeal?
No. The High Court held only the Board's decisions on substantive property tax appeals are appealable under s 35(1) of the Property Tax Act, and would have refused an extension of time anyway, so it dismissed the application.
High Court · 17 June 2026 · [2026] SGHC 131 · Read the case
-
Step 8: COD v COE
Fresh evidence cannot fill a gap left below: in a challenge to an arbitral award, the Court of Appeal dismissed as an abuse of process an application to adduce new evidence to run arguments never made to the Judge.
SUM 22 was an attempt to fill the evidential gap in order to run new arguments that were not made below to the Judge. As such, the new evidence and arguments could not form the basis of an appeal.
From the judgment Can a party bring new evidence on appeal to run arguments it chose not to make below?
Generally not. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence as an abuse of process, adding that the broker evidence was not material; the appeal against the arbitral award had already failed.
Court of Appeal · 27 September 2023 · [2023] SGCA 29 · Read the case
-
Step 9: Mustaqim Bin Abdul Kadir v Public Prosecutor
Criminal appeals apply the Ladd v Marshall conditions less rigidly, yet the Court of Appeal found the further evidence neither unavailable at trial nor material, and an abuse of process seeking a retrial on a different defence, dismissing the appeal.
The Ladd v Marshall conditions, particularly the condition of non-availability, are not applied with their full rigour in criminal proceedings.
From the judgment Can an accused adduce psychiatric evidence on appeal that his trial counsel chose not to use?
No, here. The Court of Appeal held the evidence failed the non-availability and materiality conditions, and seeking it after electing not to lead it at trial was an abuse of process; it dismissed the motion and appeal.
Court of Appeal · 24 March 2026 · [2026] SGCA 15 · Read the case
-
Step 10: Chan Swee Lean and another v LLS Capital Pte Ltd
An appellate court leaves a decision below alone unless it is plainly wrong: the Appellate Division upheld the Judge's finding of no illegality and dismissed both appeals, as the decision was not against the weight of the evidence.
We dismiss both AD 98 and 99 as the Judge’s decision was not plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
From the judgment Can a guarantor raise illegal moneylending months after not contesting a mortgagee's possession order?
No, here. The Appellate Division held the illegality allegation was a clear afterthought, unproved and an abuse of process, and dismissed both appeals, leaving the possession order and the interest ordered for the delay caused by the injunction.
High Court (Appellate Division) · 16 April 2026 · [2026] SGHC(A) 10 · Read the case
-
Step 11: Mohamed Faizel Ahmed v Public Prosecutor
Criminal appeals against conviction use the same standard: the High Court refused fresh evidence and dismissed an appeal against drug consumption and possession convictions, as the District Judge's findings were not plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
I found that none of the requirements for the admission of fresh evidence were satisfied, and the DJ’s findings and decision were not plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
From the judgment Can an accused rebut the presumption of drug consumption with a story never mentioned in his statements?
No, here. The High Court held that his uncorroborated account was an afterthought that could not rebut the presumption, refused to admit his fresh evidence, and dismissed his appeal against conviction.
High Court · 3 October 2023 · [2023] SGHC 278 · Read the case
-
Step 12: Newton David Christopher v Public Prosecutor
A sentence is changed on appeal when manifestly excessive: the High Court cut 16 weeks' imprisonment to 12 weeks because the District Judge failed to appreciate that harm and culpability were both on the low side.
The sentence of 16 weeks’ imprisonment imposed by the DJ is therefore manifestly excessive, and I set it aside and impose in its place a sentence of 12 weeks’ imprisonment.
From the judgment Does a judge copying one side's submissions into the written grounds show apparent bias?
No, here, though the practice was wholly unsatisfactory. The High Court declined to find bias but allowed the appeal against sentence, replacing 16 weeks' imprisonment with 12 weeks for conspiring to cheat with a fake vaccination.
High Court · 20 September 2023 · [2023] SGHC 266 · Read the case