Auditing

Auditing is a specialized practice area in Singapore's legal system. This area encompasses 12 cases from 2001 to 2022.

Leading Law Firms

Analysis of law firms specializing in Auditing, ranked by case volume and success rates.

Law FirmCases
Drew & Napier LLC100.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Hee Theng Fong and Co50.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Straits Law Practice LLC50.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Rajah & Tann50.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Haridass Ho & Partners0.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
WongPartnership LLP0.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
KhattarWong100.00% success rate1 cases8.3% of area
Vincent Yeoh and Co0.00% success rate1 cases8.3% of area
Yeo Leong & Peh100.00% success rate1 cases8.3% of area
Loh Eben Ong & Partners0.00% success rate1 cases8.3% of area

Notable Lawyers

Leading lawyers practicing in Auditing, ranked by case volume and success rates.

LawyerCases
Ang Yao Long Ronnie100.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Hee Theng Fong50.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Jenny Tsin0.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Haridass Ajaib0.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
V K Rajah50.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Valerie Ang50.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
N Sreenivasan50.00% success rate2 cases16.7% of area
Deborah Koh100.00% success rate1 cases8.3% of area
Lee Wei Han Shaun0.00% success rate1 cases8.3% of area
Low Zhe Ning0.00% success rate1 cases8.3% of area

Recent Judgments

Displaying 12 most recent judgments out of 12 total cases

No.TitleCourtDecision DateOutcomes
1Xu Wei Dong v Midas Holdings Ltd: Disclosure Order for Audit Documents under Companies ActGeneral Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore30 Oct 2022
Order granted for the disclosure of documents relating to audits carried out by Mazars LLP and Mazars CPA Limited on Midas Holdings Limited for the financial years ended 2012 to 2017.
2ICOP Construction v. Tiong Seng: Microtunnelling Dispute over Contract Termination and Delay ClaimsGeneral Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore11 Oct 2022
Judgment partially for Plaintiff, ICOP Construction, and partially for Defendant, Tiong Seng Civil Engineering; Quantum Hearing ordered.
3PwC v Celestial Nutrifoods: Appeal on Liquidator's Information Powers Under Section 285Court of Appeal07 Apr 2015
Appeal Dismissed
4BNY v Celestial Nutrifoods: s285 Companies Act Examination of PwCHigh Court05 Aug 2014
Application allowed; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and its representatives must produce documents requested by the liquidator.
5EC-Asia International Ltd v PricewaterhouseCoopers: Pre-Action Discovery & Auditor NegligenceHigh Court28 Dec 2010
Appeal Allowed
6Syarikat Wen Ken Drug Sdn Bhd v Lo Hock Ling & Co: Appeal on Accounting Fees DisputeHigh Court26 Oct 2005
Appeal dismissed with costs.
7United Project Consultants v Leong Kwok Onn: Negligence, Tax Agent's Duty of Care, Illegality DefenceCourt of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore15 Aug 2005
Appeal Allowed
8United Project Consultants v Leong Kwok Onn: Breach of Contract & Negligence in Tax Agent DutiesHigh Court09 Dec 2004
Plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs.
9Chaly Chee Kheong Mah v The Liquidators of Baring Futures: Contractual Indemnity & Auditors' LiabilityCourt of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore06 Jul 2003
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents (liquidators of Baring Futures (Singapore) Pte Ltd), with appellants (Deloitte & Touche) to pay 2/3 of the costs.
10Deloitte & Touche v Baring Futures: Indemnification for Legal Costs & Priority of Claims in LiquidationHigh Court18 Nov 2002
Motions dismissed
11Tay Kim Chuan Patrick v Public Accountants Board: Auditor's Duty, Professional Misconduct & Standard of CareHigh Court16 Jan 2002
Appeal Dismissed with costs.
12Tong Tien See Construction Pte Ltd v Tong Tien See: Director's Breach of Duty and Conspiracy to Defraud CreditorsHigh Court30 Dec 2001
Judgment against the First, Second, Third and Sixth Defendants for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. Claims against Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and Thirteenth Defendants dismissed.