Litigation Insights 2H 2025

The second half of 2025 saw the Singapore Courts deliver a series of significant judgments, providing important guidance for commercial parties, employers, and investors. This round-up highlights key decisions reflecting the courts’ commitment to commercial pragmatism, legal certainty, and the protection of parties’ legitimate expectations.

Key insights include:

1. Commercial parties can rely on letters of indemnity in chain trades, with courts interpreting representations in their practical commercial context rather than strictly or technically.

Fraud claims in this context require clear evidence of dishonesty, assessed by reference to the representor’s subjective belief and the steps taken to verify the underlying documents.

2. The security function of bills of lading remains robust in Singapore law.

Banks financing cargo under letters of credit are entitled to treat original bills of lading as security, even where payment is made against a letter of indemnity due to the unavailability of the bills at discharge. The courts emphasise that such rights arise by operation of law and are not displaced by commercial context or subjective intentions.

3. Crypto platforms with a Singapore nexus may be subject to Singapore law for fraudulent misrepresentation and other torts in the promotion of tokens to global investors.

The courts focus on the objective legal effect of misrepresentations, and sophisticated investors are not precluded from relief. Disclaimers in platform terms may, however, limit contractual liability.

4. Fiduciary duties are not implied by investment structure alone.

Investors in private equity and similar vehicles should not assume that fiduciary duties will be imposed on investment managers or controllers simply because of the structure of the investment or the manager’s control. Such duties must be clearly provided for in the contractual documentation, and dual-class shareholding structures alone are insufficient to give rise to fiduciary obligations.

5. Circumstantial evidence and preparatory acts may result in liability for former employees setting up competing businesses.

Where direct evidence is rare, indirect evidence may give rise to a “composite picture” of conspiracy to extract a former employer’s business. Non-compete and loyalty duties may also be breached even if actual misuse of information did not occur.

6. Employees may pursue sequential litigation for claims outside the ECT’s jurisdiction.

The courts have confirmed that employees can bring civil suits for claims not covered by the Employment Claims Tribunal, and that ECT findings may create issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings.

7. An employee’s right to respond to misconduct findings is not implied.

Employees do not have a general contractual right to respond to every piece of evidence or finding unless expressly provided for in the employment contract or relevant policies.

8. Anti-suit injunctions uphold multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses.

Singapore courts will grant anti-suit injunctions to prevent parties from circumventing agreed negotiation and mediation steps, binding even non-signatories seeking to enforce contract rights.

9. Mareva injunctions require solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation, such as unjustified dealings or dishonesty.

Holding assets typical of a party’s business and making withdrawals for staff salaries and office rent are likely to be legitimate commercial activities which do not amount to a real risk of dissipation.

10. The threshold for actionable loss or emotional distress under the Personal Data Protection Act is high, requiring a direct causal link to the breach.

Ordinary upset or inconvenience is insufficient to ground a claim for damages.

This piece was authored by Lijun Chui and Benson Fan.