Injunctions Lawyers in Singapore: The Court Record

Overview

Injunctions concern court orders that require a party to do, or to refrain from doing, a particular act. The reported record in this area runs from prohibitory and mandatory injunctions that restrain or compel conduct, to interlocutory injunctions granted to hold the position pending trial, to the more specialised orders that preserve the subject matter of a dispute — freezing injunctions that restrain the dissipation of assets, search orders that secure evidence, and anti-suit injunctions that restrain proceedings brought elsewhere. Because an injunction is a remedy invoked in aid of an underlying claim rather than a field of substantive law, the reported judgments frequently turn on the strength of the case behind the application and the balance of convenience between the parties.

The firms and counsel who appear most often in the reported injunctions record are drawn from the full-service commercial-disputes practices that carry the urgent applications — asset-preservation, restraint of conduct, and the protection of evidence — in which these orders are sought. Their prominence reflects the concentration of interlocutory and injunctive work in the litigation practices that handle time-sensitive disputes rather than a diffuse spread across the profession. The tables identify the counsel and firms named in the reported judgments, a description of activity rather than an assessment of any matter's merits.

The court record also shows where these disputes are resolved. Injunction applications cluster in the trial and appellate divisions of the High Court, where the requirements for the grant of interlocutory, freezing, and search orders, and the safeguards that attach to them, are argued. The tables below rank named firms and counsel purely by how often they appear in the reported injunctions record; the figures describe activity in reported litigation, not the quality of any representation or the outcome of any matter.