Leading Trusts Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
85 reported cases · January 2023 to June 2026
Updated
What did Singapore courts decide in Trusts?
Singapore courts issued 85 reported Trusts judgments between 2023–2026, most in SGHC (63), of the 21 with a parseable operative disposition, the most common was Appeal dismissed (9). This is a descriptive summary of what the courts recorded in reported decisions, not legal advice.
Compiled from 85 reported Trusts 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 85 reported Trusts judgments in Singapore courts (January 2023 to June 2026), Drew & Napier LLC is the most active firm by reported case count (16 cases), Jaikanth Shankar is the most active lawyer (7 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
Trusts appears in 85 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026). The most common sub-topics are Constructive trusts (15), Resulting trusts (13) and Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts (13). The most active judge by reported case count is Kannan Ramesh (9 cases) and the most active firm is Drew & Napier LLC (16 cases).
Which law firms handle the most Trusts cases in Singapore?
Drew & Napier LLC leads in Trusts with 16 cases between January 2023 and June 2026, followed by WongPartnership LLP (12 cases) and Davinder Singh Chambers LLC (8 cases). 108 firms appeared in Trusts cases during this period.
Who are the leading Trusts lawyers in Singapore?
Jaikanth Shankar is the most active Trusts lawyer in Singapore with 7 case appearances between January 2023 and June 2026, followed by Thio Shen Yi (5) and Koh Swee Yen (4).
Which judges handle the most Trusts cases in Singapore?
Kannan Ramesh has handled 9 Trusts cases between January 2023 and June 2026, the most of any Singapore judge. Hri Kumar Nair (9 cases) and Woo Bih Li (9 cases) are also among the most active.
How many Trusts cases are reported in Singapore courts?
85 reported Singapore judgments (2023–2026) involve Trusts, most often decided by Kannan Ramesh.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Trusts cases?
The main sub-topics are Constructive trusts (15), Resulting trusts (13) and Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts (13).
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Constructive trusts 15 cases
Resulting trusts 13 cases
Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts 13 cases
Constructive trusts — Common intention constructive trusts 9 cases
Express trusts 6 cases
Trustees — Duties 5 cases
Breach of trust — Remedies 4 cases
Breach of trust 4 cases
Constructive trusts — Common intention constructive trust 3 cases
Accessory liability — Knowing receipt 3 cases
Express trusts — Certainties 2 cases
Constructive trusts — Institutional constructive trust 2 cases
Accessory liability — Dishonest assistance 2 cases
Express trusts — Constitution 2 cases
Resulting trusts — Ownership of moneys in joint bank accounts 2 cases
Quistclose trusts 2 cases
Trustees — Powers 2 cases
Beneficiaries — Rights 2 cases
Accessory liability — Acts amounting to assistance 2 cases
Constructive Trusts 2 cases
Resulting Trusts 2 cases
Constructive and resulting trusts 1 case
Constructive trusts — Institutional constructive trust — Fraud 1 case
Resulting trusts — Illegality 1 case
Resulting trusts — Parties’ intentions 1 case
Unlawful trust — Whether trust is unenforceable for illegality 1 case
Presumed resulting trusts 1 case
Common intention constructive trusts 1 case
Trustees — Removal 1 case
Key Statutes
Court Distribution
Cases
Page 4 of 4Methodology & 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.