Leading Civil Procedure Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals in their entirety, leaving the striking out and the judge's costs orders undisturbed.

The Appellate Division allowed both appeals in part.

The Assistant Registrar allowed the striking out application in part, striking out only para 58 of the statement of claim, which pleaded the loss of a chance of subrogation-based priority, and…

The court allowed the application and ordered that the second claimant's claim against the defendant be struck out in its entirety under O 9 r 16(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021.

The Deputy Registrar allowed both applications, struck out the time-barred claims and determined that all claims on invoices issued before 29 November 2018 were time-barred.

The High Court ordered the claimant to pay the defendants costs fixed at $13,000 all-in, including disbursements.

The High Court fixed costs in all three matters and ordered the defendant to pay the claimants $88,703.57, being the net total.

The court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings assessed at S$177,828.14, made up of S$92,650 for Singapore counsel, S$76,800 for foreign counsel and S$8,378.14 in…

The Deputy Registrar ordered the claimant to pay the second defendant costs fixed at $1,490 (all-in), made up of $1,400 for work done and $90 for transport disbursements.

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…

The Appellate Division dismissed both the appeal and the summons for further evidence.

The court dismissed RA 70, so summary judgment was refused, although on a different ground from the Assistant Registrar's.

The court allowed RA 49 and set aside the Assistant Registrar's entire decision.

Kristy Tan J allowed RA 100 in part.

The Appellate Division allowed SUM 2, declaring that permission was required, and dismissed the applications for permission to appeal in OA 2 and OA 5.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the striking out of the whole statement of claim and the dismissal of the action, though for somewhat different reasons.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the striking out of the claims against Mr Ong and the refusal of the amendment and of the joinder of Java Asset, since the revised statement of claim…

The court dismissed the ex-Husband's striking out and stay applications and granted the ex-Wife's receivership application in the terms she sought, including over his bank accounts, immovable…

The High Court allowed both appeals.

The High Court dismissed the defendant's appeals against the refusal to strike out the statement of claim and the refusal to order security for costs.

The court dismissed the Duttas' application for permission to appeal, with costs, without calling on GMPL.

The Appellate Division held that permission was required and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application and refused permission to appeal, with costs fixed at $10,000 (all-in) to be paid by POP to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal held that permission to appeal was required and dismissed SUM 24.

The Appellate Division (Debbie Ong JAD and Valerie Thean J) dismissed the application for permission to appeal.

The court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs of SUM 1193 in the total sum of $37,840.75, made up of $7,000 for work before the transfer, $28,000 for work after the transfer and…

Sir Nigel Teare IJ allowed SUM 1193 and ordered DWJ to provide security for DWK's costs in the sum of $100,000, by payment into court or a solicitor's undertaking within 28 days, failing which DWJ's…

The Court of Appeal allowed the application without an oral hearing.

The District Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Deputy Registrar's orders requiring the claimant to furnish security for the 2nd Defendant's costs.

The High Court dismissed the defendant's appeals against the refusal to strike out the statement of claim and the refusal to order security for costs.

The Assistant Registrar dismissed the defendants' application in SUM 1656.

Tan Siong Thye SJ allowed both main applications.

The District Court allowed Simba's application in part.

The High Court dismissed SUMs 2337 and 2338, finding no real risk of overlapping issues and holding that it would in any event have declined to exercise its discretion to grant the stays.

The court dismissed the ex-Husband's striking out and stay applications and granted the ex-Wife's receivership application in the terms she sought, including over his bank accounts, immovable…

The Assistant Registrar allowed the striking out application in part, striking out only para 58 of the statement of claim, which pleaded the loss of a chance of subrogation-based priority, and…

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, and held that it would in any case have dismissed the application for permission on its merits.

The Appellate Division dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal.

The High Court dismissed all three of LBD's applications, SUM 3720, SUM 3715 and SUM 3719.

The Appellate Division dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiffs' appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' two applications to strike out the defendants' appeals, which were…

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the striking out of the claims against Mr Ong and the refusal of the amendment and of the joinder of Java Asset, since the revised statement of claim…

The Assistant Registrar allowed SUM 1132 in part, permitting the amended defence in full and the misrepresentation counterclaim except the pleaded representation that Palyanitsa contracted for the…

The High Court allowed both appeals.

The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Assistant Registrar's refusal of the substantive amendments, and reserved costs to the trial judge.

The court allowed Mr Modi's appeal in part and awarded him costs here and below.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the order required the Defendants to provide only those lease documents in their possession at the date of the Final Award, which the evidence showed…

The court dismissed the application with full costs.

The court dismissed SUM 62 and dismissed prayers 1 and 2 of SUM 286, for the reasons given in the 25 July Decision.

S Mohan J allowed SUM 3059 in part.

S Mohan J held that the General Division had jurisdiction and was the proper court for the application, and granted OKI's application for an interim stay of execution of CA/ORC 34/2024, subject to…

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to adduce further evidence and dismissed the damages appeal except that it revised the cut-off price to US$0.60485 and corrected one claimant's award to…

The court allowed the claimants' costs claims in part.

The court allowed the application in part.

The court refused the second defendant's request to vary the costs order and ordered the second defendant to pay the first defendant's costs of the summons assessed at $35,000, less than the $40,000…

The court allowed the claimants' request for costs in part.

Wong Li Kok, Alex JC dismissed the claimant's claims, holding the summary dismissal valid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, though for different reasons from the Judge, holding that Alvance had become a party to the FSA so that LEG was liable under the Guarantee; the Judge's…

The Appellate Division allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment below.

The court dismissed Mr Manoj's claim over the S$2.8m transfer, dismissed his claim of S$33,000 for the Edulis wines, and dismissed Mr Mike's counterclaim of S$300,000 for the number plates.

The court allowed Renault's claims in part.

The High Court ordered the claimant to pay the defendants costs fixed at $13,000 all-in, including disbursements.

The High Court dismissed both of Emily's applications, HC/SUM 2275/2026 and HC/SUM 2023/2026, leaving the worldwide Mareva injunction and the enforcement order in place, and said it would hear the…

Tan Siong Thye SJ allowed both main applications.

The court set aside the freezing order ORC 5600 and allowed SUM 2992, the defendant's setting-aside application.

The High Court dismissed the 4th defendant's claim for compensation under the undertaking as to damages, with costs, finding that the freezing order did not cause the loss and that, in any event, the…

S Mohan J allowed the application, with some amendments to the wording of the orders.

The Assistant Registrar dismissed both applications, found no reason to set aside the service out order, and fixed costs payable by the defendants to Mr Prosetskii.

Mohamed Faizal JC dismissed the appeal, agreeing that Mr Yip had a prima facie defence raising triable issues and that the default judgment should be set aside without conditions.

Roger Giles IJ dismissed Kiri's application, so the order setting aside the service out order as regards Mr Ruan became unconditional.

The court dismissed SUM 8 in respect of prayers 1(b) to 1(d), made no order on the declaration about service, and ordered that ORC 5 stand, with Phoenix to pay PIMD's costs.

The Appellate Division dismissed both the appeal and the summons for further evidence.

The court allowed the summons in part, admitting the opinion on validity of service but not the opinion on setting aside, and dismissed the registrar's appeal, upholding the summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to adduce further evidence and dismissed the damages appeal except that it revised the cut-off price to US$0.60485 and corrected one claimant's award to…

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, holding that the proposed appeal would be hopeless even taking the fresh evidence into account.

Goh Yihan JC allowed the application to admit further evidence and allowed the appeal.

Kwek Mean Luck J dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, leaving in place the Assistant Registrar's order granting the 2nd and 3rd defendants leave to amend their Defence.

The Court of Appeal, in grounds delivered by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, allowed the appeals, allowed the amendment applications and dismissed the striking out applications.

The Appellate Division dismissed the appellants' request to rehear SUM 46 and accordingly dismissed SUM 5.

The High Court allowed SUM 3265 in part and dismissed SUM 3266 entirely, with costs of $12,000 to the claimants.

Goh Yihan JC allowed the application to admit further evidence and allowed the appeal.

The High Court granted the application, permitting Vivaz to file the protective writ on condition that it not be served on the potential defendants pending the appeal, and allowed an oral application…

The High Court dismissed the defendants' application in HC/SUM 1733/2025, leaving ORC 619 in place, and allowed LLS's application in HC/SUM 2095/2025, ordering that the interim injunction in ORC 3351…

The Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA) dismissed the application on 30 August 2024, and the request to amend it fell away.

The Assistant Registrar dismissed the debtor's application, holding that the bankruptcy order was validly made and that there was no basis either to annul it or to set it aside under the court's…

The High Court allowed the application.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the refusal to order Acuity to produce the criminal complaints, and ordered the claimants to pay costs of the appeal fixed at $15,000 inclusive of…

The Assistant Registrar allowed SUM 2052 and ordered the respondents to produce the disputed documents within seven days, in compliance with the orders in SUM 898.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the assistant registrar's unless order.

The assistant registrar allowed both applications in part.

The Assistant Registrar allowed SUM 643, ordered that the unless order take effect, set aside ORC 1189 and dismissed OA 222.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the striking out and declined to strike out any of the claimants' claims.

The court allowed the bank's application and struck out the originating claim and statement of claim in their entirety as an abuse of process.

Chua Lee Ming J allowed all three appeals, set aside the Assistant Registrar's orders and struck out Ever Strategy's claims against all the defendants.

The Assistant Registrar allowed Tidewater's application and struck out Mr Berard's claims and the action in OC 285 in their entirety under O 9 r 16(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021, as disclosing no…

Kristy Tan JC granted the striking out application.

The Appellate Division allowed the appeal in part and awarded UOB $76,105,998.81, with post-judgment interest structured as set out in the judgment, and costs of $50,000 (all-in) to UOB.

Deputy Registrar Don Ho allowed the claim in part, awarding general damages of $9,800 and special damages of $3353.71 with the usual consequential orders.

The High Court allowed UOB's claim in part, awarding $17,738,446.53: excess loans of S$50,796,175.20, cost of funds of S$720,535.02, credit spread of S$967,093.50 and investigation costs of…

The court ordered interest at 5.33% per annum both ways.

The Appellate Division allowed both appeals in part.

The court allowed each of the four applications in part.

The court allowed the application in part.

Assistant Registrar Vikram Rajaram dismissed MHC's requests for particulars and allowed Dr Lim's application in part: MHC had to particularise the statements relied on and the basis for alleging…

The court agreed with the assistant registrar that the four requests were requests for evidence, and dismissed KPMG's appeal.

Assistant Registrar Perry Peh allowed the application in part.

The court allowed each of the four applications in part.

The Assistant Registrar allowed both IPCG's application and DB's application in part.

The judge dismissed both appeals.

The assistant registrar dismissed the application for production of the Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 documents and reserved the question of costs.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, holding that the VRB's decision was not appealable and that, even if it were, no extension should be granted.

The Appellate Division (Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and See Kee Oon JAD) dismissed both appeals, finding the Judge's decision was not plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.

The High Court dismissed the defendants' application in HC/SUM 1733/2025, leaving ORC 619 in place, and allowed LLS's application in HC/SUM 2095/2025, ordering that the interim injunction in ORC 3351…

The court dismissed Summons 712 with costs fixed at $1,500 (all in) payable by Mr Koh to OCBC.

The Court of Appeal dismissed SUM 5, granted prayer 1 of SUM 9 declaring that permission to appeal was not required, and made an order in terms of SUM 7 sealing the appeal file.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Sundaresh Menon CJ, refused permission to appeal and dismissed the application, declined to order a case management stay, and left open the…

The Court of Appeal dismissed both applications because no permission to appeal was needed: the orders the directors wished to challenge were final, not interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Judith Prakash JCA and Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the application for permission to appeal, so the claim in OC 265 would proceed against Ken Koh and KYK.

The High Court dismissed the defendants' application in HC/SUM 1733/2025, leaving ORC 619 in place, and allowed LLS's application in HC/SUM 2095/2025, ordering that the interim injunction in ORC 3351…

The High Court dismissed DJY's application for an injunction against DJZ and the bank.

Goh Yihan J dismissed the claimant's application for interim injunctions.

The court allowed the applications and entered judgment in default in both claims, with damages to be assessed before a High Court judge and costs to be fixed at that hearing.

The court allowed the claim in part.

The High Court allowed the claim in part.

Christopher Tan JC accepted the defendants' submission of no case to answer and dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims, finding that they were not established even to a prima facie standard.

The court allowed the claim in deceit and found Mr Tong and Mr Peng jointly and severally liable.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, only to the extent of varying the costs order.

The court allowed the application in part.

The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' application, but only for the sole purpose of letting the Hong Kong court decide whether the defendant had breached its discovery order.

The High Court (Choo Han Teck J) allowed the appeal in part.

Valerie Thean J allowed the OETs' application.

Choo Han Teck J approved the settlement and, by consent, gave the parents leave to discontinue the suit on the agreed terms.

The Assistant Registrar dismissed the intervention application and refused the trustee permission to participate in the proceedings in any capacity, whether as an added party or as an interested…

Philip Jeyaretnam J allowed both appeals.

The Magistrate's Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant costs of the whole action on an indemnity basis fixed at $6,500 plus GST.

The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' further claims in part.

Andre Maniam J granted the declaration sought, declaring that Dr Kim had not provided a proper, complete and accurate account of what became of the Sale Proceeds.

The High Court dismissed the application to set aside the proprietary injunction, but ordered the company to provide notional fortification of its undertaking as to damages of US$125,000 within three…

The High Court dismissed SUM 437, declining to grant either the Mareva injunction or the interim injunction, and said it would hear the parties on costs.

The court dismissed all six summonses and upheld ORC 6146 in part.