Singapore Court Judgments
Showing 10 of 9,503 judgments
XBV v XBU: Appeal on Child Custody Handover Time - Best Interests of Children
In XBV v XBU, before the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) of Singapore, the Father appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding the handover time of their two children. The Father sought a change from Sunday evening at 6pm to Sunday morning at 9am. The court dismissed the appeal, finding it procedurally defective and without merit, emphasizing the importance of shared care and the children's best interests.
WWQ v WWR: Appeal on Child Maintenance Variation Under Women's Charter
In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, Choo Han Teck J allowed the appeal of WWQ (the Wife) against the decision of the District Judge to vary the child maintenance payments made by WWR (the Husband). The Wife appealed the decision to reduce the Husband's maintenance payment for their child from S$1,400 to S$850 per month. The court found that the Husband failed to provide sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances to justify the reduction and ordered the Husband to pay the backdated maintenance in installments.
Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services: Unfair Dismissal & Data Breach
In Tan Tung Wee Eddie v Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Dr. Tan, a neurosurgeon, against his former employer, Singapore Health Services, for wrongful dismissal and negligence. Dr. Tan was dismissed for breaching patient confidentiality by accessing medical records of patients not under his care, alleging unethical practices by a colleague. The court, presided over by Chua Lee Ming J, dismissed Dr. Tan's claims, finding that the dismissal was justified due to the data breaches and that the hospital had followed due process.
XAT v XAU: Testamentary Capacity and Validity of Will Dispute
XAT appealed the District Court's decision regarding the validity of her deceased husband's will, in which he bequeathed his estate to the second respondent, XAV, his half-sister, and appointed the first respondent, XAU, his nephew, as executor. The appellant challenged the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, forgery, and undue influence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the deceased had testamentary capacity and that the will was rational on its face, despite the circumstances of its execution shortly after the deceased's surgery. The court found insufficient evidence of forgery or undue influence.
Banner (China) Investment v Ang: Signature Specimen Selection for Handwriting Analysis
In Banner (China) Investment Company Limited v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min, the High Court of Singapore addressed the process for obtaining signature samples for handwriting analysis in a loan repayment claim. Banner claims Mr. Ang owes them S$11,092,061.53, relying on an audit confirmation Mr. Ang denies signing, claiming forgery. The court ordered that the directions made for obtaining signature samples for handwriting analysis are to stand.
Lee Sim Leng v SMRT Buses Ltd: Personal Injury Claim - Damages Assessment
In Lee Sim Leng v SMRT Buses Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed a personal injury claim resulting from a motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Lee Sim Leng, sued SMRT Buses Ltd for damages. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Alex Wong Li Kok, found that while the accident caused a Grade 2 whiplash injury and exacerbated a pre-existing Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the plaintiff's pre-existing cervical spondylosis significantly contributed to her condition. The court awarded the plaintiff $17,373.16, accounting for general and special damages, and pre-judgment interest.
Che’som Binti Abdullah v Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope: Undue Influence in Property Transfer Dispute
In Che’som Binti Abdullah v Qurratu Ain Binti Mohamed Yusope, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed Mdm Che’som’s claim against her daughter, Mdm Ain, to set aside a property transfer. Mdm Che’som argued fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, undue influence, mistake, and non est factum. The court found Mdm Che’som understood the transfer documents and her consent was not vitiated. The court dismissed the claim.
Re Smith, Tom KC: Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel in UTSS Appeal
The General Division of the High Court of Singapore, in the matter of Re Smith, Tom KC [2025] SGHC 9, addressed an application by Tom Smith KC for ad hoc admission to represent UT Singapore Services Pte Ltd (UTSS) in appeals against Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd (HLT) and its liquidators. The court, presided over by Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the application, finding that UTSS's existing local counsel was competent and that there was no 'need' to admit foreign counsel. The court also noted UTSS had not demonstrated a reasonably conscientious search for local counsel.
Victory International v Borrelli: Receiver's Duties & Legal Profession Act Assessment
Victory International Holdings Pte Ltd appealed to the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore on 25 October 2024 against the decision in HC/OA 1214/2023, involving Cosimo Borrelli and Clifford Chance Pte Ltd. The appeal concerned whether a receiver is obliged to provide information to a chargor and whether a solicitor's bill of costs may be assessed under the Legal Profession Act. The court partially allowed the appeal, ordering CCPL to deliver its bill for assessment.
Blakney v Muhammad Izz Mikail: Transfer of Case Involving Personal Injury Claim Exceeding District Court Limit
In 2025, the General Division of the High Court heard an application by Gregory Allen Blakney to transfer his personal injury claim against Muhammad Izz Mikail bin Mazlan from the District Court to the General Division. The claim arose from a 2019 road traffic accident. The court, presided over by AR Perry Peh, allowed the transfer, finding that Blakney's claimed damages were likely to exceed the District Court's jurisdictional limit and that Muhammad Izz Mikail would not be prejudiced by the transfer.