Singapore Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal area

Court

22 May 2026

YEJ v YEK

Citation

[2026] SGFC 75
Court

Family Court
Case number

SSP 2569/2025

The applicant's allegations, even if accepted, did not establish the necessity of a PPO because the parties were living apart, the applicant had cut off contact and taken precautions, and no evidence demonstrated a real likelihood of future violence; therefore a PPO was not necessary and the application was dismissed, with dependent reliefs (NCO, CGO, MTO) failing as a consequence.
- Personal protection order
- No contact order
- Mandatory treatment order
- Counselling order
- Proceeding in absence
22 May 2026

TAH LI THONG FOAM INDUSTRY v FURNITURE & FURNISHINGS PTE LTD

Citation

[2026] SGDC 174
Court

District Court
Case number

DC/DC 2114/2021

Defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving that a contractual Fulfilment Obligation existed; credible evidence established the Plaintiff retained discretion to accept orders after receipt of Order Confirmations; therefore the counterclaim premised on breach of that obligation must be dismissed.
- Contractual terms
- Delivery obligations
- Consignment arrangements
- Termination
- Summary judgment
22 May 2026

JEH v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

[2026] SGHC 113
Court

General Division of the High Court
Case number

HC/MA 9183/2025/01

Appeal dismissed because the High Court found the custodial threshold was crossed: the defendant caused appreciable harm through wastage of public resources, wrongful deprivation or real risk to another child's school place, and erosion of public confidence; defendant's high culpability (premeditation, multiple lies, instigating others, prolonged offending) and the fact the offence was amalgamated justified custodial sentences; DJ did not err in law or principle and the concurrent one‑week terms were not manifestly excessive.
- Giving false information to a public servant
- False reporting of change of address
- Custodial threshold
- Amalgamated offence
- Primary 1 school registration
- General deterrence
22 May 2026

Djony Gunawan v Christina Lesmana

Citation

[2026] SGHC 112
Court

General Division of the High Court
Case number

HC/OA 979/2025 ( HC/RA 244/2025,HC/SUM 673/2026 )

OA 979 was struck out because the previous consolidated proceedings and subsequent appeals finally determined the parties' beneficial interests in the Seaview Property; OA 979 seeks to relitigate the same material facts (the alleged 2018 settlement and ownership) and thereby is barred by cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and is an abuse of process. Independently, any contractual enforcement claim based on the 2018 settlement was time‑barred under s 6 Limitation Act 1959 because performance ought reasonably to have occurred within a short period and the cause of action accrued more than…
- Res judicata
- Cause of action estoppel
- Issue estoppel
- Abuse of process
- Time bar (limitation)
- Presumption of advancement
21 May 2026

JGS v JGT

Citation

[2026] SGSCT 10
Court

Small Claims Tribunals
Case number

SCT/12316/2026

The handwritten refund clause was ambiguous as to whether ordinary oil leaks and gear-shifting issues qualified; under reg 3(2) ambiguity is construed against the dealer and regs 3(1), 4(1) and 5 require a clear written pre-deposit policy and place the burden on the dealer to prove compliance; respondent failed to prove compliance, so the deposit must be refunded.
- Deposit refund
- Contractual interpretation
- Regulatory compliance
- Pre-purchase inspection
- Forfeiture of deposit
21 May 2026

FRANK LEE v INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH & 9 Ors

Citation

[2026] SGHC 111
Court

General Division of the High Court
Case number

HC/OC 324/2026 ( HC/RA 104/2026,HC/SUM 1438/2026,HC/SUM 1494/2026,HC/SUM 1551/2026,HC/SUM 1144/2026,HC/SUM 1477/2026 )

The SOC was struck out and the action dismissed because it discloses no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of process: the claimant’s foundational factual and legal assertions (denial of existence of mind/mental disorders) are contrary to enacted law and binding authority, the remedies sought (sweeping prohibition on statutory powers of IMH and MOH) are contrary to law and public interest, and the claimant used pleadings as a vehicle for correspondence and to attract attention of unrelated parties; applications for contempt were dismissed for lack of Attorney‑General's consent and no…
- Striking out
- Abuse of process
- Injunction
- Declaratory relief
- Contempt proceedings
- Costs
21 May 2026

GALVEZ MARY JOE BLANCO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Citation

[2026] SGHC 110
Court

General Division of the High Court
Case number

HC/MA 9080/2025/01

For s 55A(1)(b)(iii) CDSA offences the court adopts a Logachev-style harm-culpability matrix adapted to use the full CDSA statutory range (fine up to $50,000 and/or up to 3 years' imprisonment), with specified offence-specific aggravating factors (including victim vulnerability and amount laundered); probation is generally unsuitable for such scams-related offences (particularly for foreign offenders lacking local roots); guilty plea discounts apply; on the facts (moderate harm, low culpability, vulnerable victim present) the appropriate starting point is seven months reduced to six months th…
- Section 55a cdsa
- Probation suitability
- Sentencing framework (logachev/huang ying-chun)
- Vulnerable victims
- Guilty plea discount
21 May 2026

JXC Pte. Ltd. v Thye Chuan Engineering Construction Co. Pte Ltd.

Citation

[2026] SGHC 100
Court

General Division of the High Court
Case number

HC/OA 200/2026

No breach of natural justice: the arbitrator's reasoning that invoices addressed to MEOD represented de facto losses of Thye Chuan flowed from the pleadings and evidence (including JXC's amended defence and counterclaim and JXC's reliance on an MEOD-addressed delivery order for its own counterclaim), was foreseeable, and parties had opportunities to address the issue; accordingly JXC's setting-aside application is dismissed and the costs order stands; had a breach been found the correct course would have been remission to the tribunal for further consideration on that discrete point.
- Setting aside arbitral award
- Breach of natural justice
- Remission to tribunal
- Costs
20 May 2026

Wong Mei Lee, Millie v Jake Ngor Shing Rong

Citation

[2026] SGCA 27
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CA/CA 42/2025

On the evidence the parties intended the recorded 99:1 legal title to reflect legal and beneficial ownership; respondent failed to discharge burden to show he did not intend to benefit appellant and no resulting trust arose; even if a resulting trust had arisen, it would have been tainted by an illegal purpose of evading ABSD (tax evasion) and denying the claim would not be disproportionate.
- Resulting trust
- Beneficial ownership
- Illegality (tax evasion and under-stamping)
- Presumption of resulting trust
- Additional buyer’s stamp duty (absd)
20 May 2026

Jong Khee Beng Ainsley v Teo Kim Phang

Citation

[2026] SGDC 167
Court

District Court
Case number

DC/S 1189/2018 ( DC/AD 93/2024 )

Plaintiff failed to prove causation for the shoulder injury and failed to prove that the accident exacerbated underlying cervical degenerative disease because of an unexplained gap of about five months in contemporaneous medical records and unreliable factual basis for experts' opinions; the court preferred objective radiological interpretation and Defendant's expert. Damages awarded only for minor neck injury ($2,000), right thumb contusion ($750), minor head injury ($1,500), proved medical expenses ($4,439.55) and transport ($300) totaling $8,989.55 on a 100% basis; claims for shoulder inju…
- Causation
- Measure of damages
- General damages
- Special damages
- Loss of earning capacity
- Medical expenses