Leading Tort Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
150 reported cases · January 2023 to July 2026
Updated
What did Singapore courts decide in Tort?
Singapore courts issued 150 reported Tort judgments between 2023–2026, most in SGHC (95), of the 44 with a parseable operative disposition, the most common was Claim dismissed (23), the median monetary award recorded was $50,625. This is a descriptive summary of what the courts recorded in reported decisions, not legal advice.
Compiled from 150 reported Tort judgments published on eLitigation. Counts and figures are derived from the judgments themselves; the Attorney-General's Chambers is excluded from the counsel and firm counts as the public prosecutor.
Outcome data updated
Across 150 reported Tort judgments in Singapore courts (January 2023 to July 2026), Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP is the most active firm by reported case count (15 cases), Lin Hui Yin Sharon is the most active lawyer (4 case appearances). This ranks named firms and lawyers by how often they appear in reported decisions — a descriptive count of activity, not an assessment of quality or standing.
Overview
Tort appears in 150 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026). The most common sub-topics are Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit (25), Conspiracy (24) and Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation (18). The most active judge by reported case count is Steven Chong (9 cases) and the most active firm is Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (15 cases).
Which law firms handle the most Tort cases in Singapore?
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP leads in Tort with 15 cases between January 2023 and July 2026, followed by Drew & Napier LLC (13 cases) and Allen & Gledhill LLP (10 cases). 179 firms appeared in Tort cases during this period.
Who are the leading Tort lawyers in Singapore?
Lin Hui Yin Sharon is the most active Tort lawyer in Singapore with 4 case appearances between January 2023 and July 2026, followed by Luo Ling Ling (3) and Saadhvika Jayanth (3).
Which judges handle the most Tort cases in Singapore?
Steven Chong has handled 9 Tort cases between January 2023 and July 2026, the most of any Singapore judge. Mohamed Faizal (8 cases) and Belinda Ang Saw Ean (7 cases) are also among the most active.
How many Tort cases are reported in Singapore courts?
150 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026) involve Tort, most often decided by Steven Chong.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Tort cases?
The main sub-topics are Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit (25), Conspiracy (24) and Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation (18).
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit 25 cases
Conspiracy 24 cases
Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation 18 cases
Negligence — Breach of duty 12 cases
Negligence — Duty of care 11 cases
Inducement of breach of contract 11 cases
Negligence 9 cases
Negligence — Causation 8 cases
Conspiracy — Unlawful means conspiracy 7 cases
Negligence — Contributory negligence 5 cases
Conversion 5 cases
Vicarious liability 5 cases
Defamation — Justification 4 cases
Defamation — Qualified privilege 4 cases
Conspiracy — Lawful means conspiracy 4 cases
Breach of statutory duty — Duties imposed by statute 3 cases
Defamation — Publication 3 cases
Defamation — Defamatory statements 3 cases
Conspiracy — Combination 3 cases
Misrepresentation 3 cases
Trespass — Land 2 cases
Detinue 2 cases
Defamation — Fair comment 2 cases
Malicious falsehood 2 cases
Defamation — Malice 2 cases
Unlawful means conspiracy 2 cases
Negligence — Res ipsa loquitur 2 cases
Misrepresentation — Innocent misrepresentation 2 cases
Negligence — Damages 2 cases
Key Statutes
Guides & Data
Court Distribution
Cases
Page 6 of 6Methodology & disclaimer
Firms and lawyers are ranked by the number of reported Supreme Court judgments they appear in, published on eLitigation. Counts reflect appearances in reported decisions only — unreported matters, settlements, and advisory work are not included. This is a descriptive count of activity by reported case volume, not an assessment of quality or standing, and not an endorsement or recommendation of any firm or lawyer. It is information, not legal advice.