Tort Lawyers in Singapore: The Court Record
Who appears in reported Tort cases, and what happened · January 2023 to October 2026
As of , 178 reported Tort judgments on this site.
Across 178 reported Tort judgments in Singapore courts (2023–2026), Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP appears as counsel in the most cases (16), Tan Seng Chew Richard is the most frequently appearing lawyer (5 appearances), of the 53 judgments with a recorded operative disposition, the most common was claim dismissed (23). These are descriptive counts of who appears in the reported record and what the courts recorded — not an assessment of quality or standing, not an outcome prediction, and not legal advice.
Overview
Tort is the body of law that governs civil wrongs — situations where one party's conduct causes harm to another and the law provides a remedy independently of any contract. It covers negligence and the duties of care that arise between parties, personal-injury claims, defamation, nuisance, and the economic torts, and it turns on questions of duty, breach, causation, and the damage that flows from a wrong. Reported judgments in this area are dominated by how the courts decide liability and how they assess the compensation that follows.
The firms and counsel who appear most often in the reported tort record range from personal-injury and insurance-facing practices to the general litigation teams of larger full-service firms. Their prominence reflects how frequently the reported judgments name them as counsel across negligence and personal-injury claims, defamation actions, and appeals on liability and damages — a description of activity in the reported record, not an assessment of any matter's merits.
The court record also shows where these matters are resolved. Tort claims are argued across the whole court hierarchy, from the trial courts that hear personal-injury and negligence claims to the appellate divisions that settle points on the scope of duty and the measure of damages. Where a reported matter turns on how much was awarded for a particular injury, the quantum analyses and the personal-injury damages reference linked from this page set out how the courts have approached those awards. The tables below rank named firms and counsel purely by how often they appear in the reported tort record; the figures describe activity in reported litigation, not the quality of any representation or the outcome of any matter.
Which law firms appear most often in reported Tort cases in Singapore?
Who are the most active Tort lawyers in Singapore by reported cases?
What did Singapore courts decide in Tort cases?
Operative dispositions recorded across the 53 reported Tort judgments that carried one — an area-level distribution, not a per-lawyer or per-firm rate.
Representative reported Tort judgments
The most-cited reported Tort judgments on this site, ranked by how often later decisions cite them.
-
Not here. The High Court found the seller's contract genuine, holding circular trades are not in themselves shams and the bank had not pleaded who at the seller had a fraudulent state of mind, and dismissed all its claims.
High Court · 5 June 2024 · [2024] SGHC 145 · cited by 8 later judgments -
No. The High Court held such a complaint can attract qualified privilege, but found malice defeated it, held the complainant liable for defamation and allowed the lawyer's claim on liability.
High Court · 14 August 2023 · [2023] SGHC 221 · cited by 7 later judgments -
No. The High Court held that if the borrower's default was inevitable, nothing the alleged inducer did could have operated on its will; with the claims also poorly pleaded, it dismissed the lender's appeals against striking out.
High Court · 7 November 2024 · [2024] SGHC 289 · cited by 6 later judgments -
No. Among other reasons, the High Court found the pressure was ordinary commercial pressure, the lenders sought to recover their loans rather than to injure, and the bankruptcies were inevitable; it dismissed the counterclaims.
High Court · 28 October 2024 · [2024] SGHC 277 · cited by 6 later judgments -
Yes. The High Court found no dominant purpose to dilute, but held this rights issue was oppressive because it had lost its commercial justification and was conducted in a commercially unfair manner, and allowed the oppression claim in part.
High Court · 10 July 2024 · [2024] SGHC 177 · cited by 6 later judgments -
No, in bifurcated motor accident injury cases. The High Court held causation is part of liability, so there it cannot be reserved to, or challenged at, the assessment of damages, and made no order as to costs.
High Court · 30 March 2023 · [2023] SGHC 75 · cited by 6 later judgments -
No, here. The High Court held only a registered member may sue for oppression; he ceased to be one by transferring his shares of his own accord, the narrow estoppel exception did not apply, and it dismissed the claims.
High Court · 29 December 2023 · [2023] SGHC 361 · cited by 5 later judgments -
It can. The High Court allowed the claims in part, finding infringement and passing off for uses aimed at Singapore, refused statutory damages, and allowed the second defendant's $143,665.80 counterclaim for water supplied.
High Court · 26 May 2023 · [2023] SGHC 156 · cited by 5 later judgments -
No, not arguably here. The High Court held investors who knowingly traded management control for economic rights had no viable case of a fiduciary undertaking, and dismissed the appeal against striking out the claims against the alleged accessory.
High Court · 21 August 2025 · [2025] SGHC 166 · cited by 4 later judgments -
No. The High Court found the director took the salon's cash takings and sublet rent and moved the business to his own company, and allowed the claim in part, holding both liable for $787,500.
High Court · 17 December 2024 · [2024] SGHC 324 · cited by 4 later judgments
What the court record shows about costs in Tort cases
Costs dispositions read from the 51 reported Tort judgments that addressed costs (26 stated a figure).
Which courts hear Tort cases?
Guides & Data
Which law firms appear most often in reported tort cases in Singapore?
The firms that appear most frequently range from personal-injury and insurance-facing practices to the general litigation teams within larger full-service firms, because tort claims span negligence, personal injury, defamation, and nuisance. The ranked tables on this page are built live from the reported court record and list firms by how often reported tort judgments name them as counsel.
What kinds of matters fall under tort?
Tort covers civil wrongs that arise independently of any contract, rather than the substantive law of any commercial field. Typical reported questions include negligence and the duty of care, personal-injury claims and the assessment of damages, defamation, nuisance, the economic torts, and appeals on questions of liability and quantum.
Does appearing often in tort cases indicate a lawyer's success rate?
No. The counts on this page measure how often a firm or lawyer appears as counsel in reported tort judgments. They are a descriptive record of activity in reported litigation and are not a measure of outcomes, win rates, or the quality of any representation.
Explore the court record
These figures sit inside a wider picture of who litigates in Singapore and how the profession is shaped.
- To see the firms that appear most across every reported area, not just Tort, read Largest Law Firms in Singapore, Ranked by Reported Court Cases (2026).
- For the individual counsel who appear in the most reported judgments overall, see Most Active Lawyers in Singapore, Ranked by Reported Court Cases (2026).
- For how many lawyers and firms Singapore actually has, and how that compares with the court record, read Singapore's legal profession, in numbers.
- For what the cases teach about Tort — sub-topics, key cases, terms and the full case list — return to the Tort topic page.
Methodology & disclaimer
Firms and counsel are ranked by the number of reported Singapore Tort judgments in which they appear, counting each judgment once. Counts reflect appearances in reported decisions only — unreported matters, settlements and advisory work are not included. This is a descriptive count of activity in reported litigation, not an assessment of quality or standing, and not an endorsement of any firm or lawyer. It is information, not legal advice.