Sign in
Singapore Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Singapore Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Singapore decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law [2025] SGHC 165

NARESH KUMAR S/O NAGESVARAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The High Court held that failing to return to Singapore after an expired exit permit is a strict liability offence under the Enlistment Act and dismissed the appeal.

  • Strict liability
  • Presumption of mens rea
  • Retrospective operation of statute
  • Statutory defence of reasonable care
  • Common law defence of reasonable care
  • Enlistment act / national service offences
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2023] SGHC 187

HUANG XIAOYUE v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The High Court adopted a benchmark sentencing framework for unlicensed massage establishment offences and reduced the appellant’s sentence from 24 to 18 weeks.

  • Massage establishments
  • Strict liability
  • Sentencing framework
  • Benchmark sentencing
  • Repeat offender
  • Custodial threshold
Read case analysis
Land [2021] SGHC 260

The Management Corporation Strata Plan No. 3602 v DECLAN PEARSE MACFADDEN

The High Court held an STB cannot award damages for breach of statutory duty and that an MCST’s duty to maintain common property is not strict liability.

  • Common property
  • Strata titles board jurisdiction
  • Breach of statutory duty
  • Negligence
  • Damages
  • Strict liability
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2017] SGHC 230

CHUA HOCK SOON JAMES v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

High Court appeal on pyramid selling convictions involving the Global Edupreneur Program; convictions were upheld, with the court addressing exclusions, mens rea, promotion, and director liability.

  • Multi-level marketing
  • Pyramid selling
  • Excluded schemes
  • Purposive statutory construction
  • Mens rea
  • Strict liability
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2017] SGHC 108

CHINPO SHIPPING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The High Court set aside Chinpo’s DPRK sanctions conviction but upheld its remittance-business conviction, holding the Transfer fell outside Reg 12(b) while the MCRBA licensing offence was made out.

  • United nations (sanctions – democratic people’s republic of korea) regulations 2010
  • Money-changing and remittance businesses act
  • Strict liability
  • Mens rea
  • Actus reus
  • Mistake of fact (s79 defence)
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure [2016] SGHC 243

SENG FOO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

High Court upheld a S$60,000 fine for cable-safety breaches and damage.

  • Sentencing principles
  • One-transaction rule
  • Totality principle
  • Strict liability
  • Due diligence defence
  • Statutory interpretation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2015] SGCA 58

Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat

Court of Appeal held that trade mark defence provisions do not strictly apply to abettors, but an abettor may rely on the same facts to raise reasonable doubt. It also confirmed the HPA burden-shift scheme.

  • Abetment
  • Strict liability
  • Statutory defences
  • Mens rea
  • Burden of proof
  • Due diligence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2014] SGHC 193

Leu Xing-Long v Public Prosecutor

The High Court held that mistake as to age is excluded by statute for commercial sex with a minor, and dismissed the appeal against conviction.

  • Mens rea
  • Strict liability
  • Absolute liability
  • Mistake of age
  • Statutory defences
  • Accident defence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2014] SGHC 174

Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat and another Appeal

The High Court allowed Koh Peng Kiat’s cross appeal, quashed 14 convictions for trademark and health products offences, and dismissed the prosecution’s sentence appeal.

  • Abetment
  • Strict liability
  • Statutory defences
  • Mens rea
  • Proviso to s49 tma
  • S16(1)(b) hpa
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2011] SGHC 221

Muhammad Faizal bin Rahim v Public Prosecutor

The High Court upheld a 12-month driving disqualification for riding without insurance, holding that “special reasons” under the Act remain limited to the offence, not the offender.

  • Special reasons exception
  • Mandatory disqualification
  • Strict liability
  • Sentencing discretion
  • Mitigation
  • Special-reasons-exception
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Singapore decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.