We were founded in 2012 with the aim of delivering exceptional and efficient results in commercial and criminal disputes. 10 years on, we have established a strong reputation for punching well above our weight. We frequently go up against other elite law firms and the Singapore prosecutorial authorities. Cases we have fought and won include high value commercial disputes with unusual complexity, appeals involving novel questions of law, and litigation where the client’s life and liberty are at stake.
Trials are our specialty. Our litigators are trained to hit the ground running and get straight to the heart of the matter. We are well-versed in breaking down large, complex disputes and identifying the key issues that are decisive in a victory. We cut straight to the chase, and do not waste time on satellite litigation.
Independent & Conflict-Free
We maintain our independence as advocates and are ready to litigate against large institutions, including major financial institutions and governmental bodies. As long as the case is meritorious, there is no opponent we shy away from.
Strong Pro Bono Practice
We are proud members of an honourable profession who believe in giving back to society. Our litigators are frequently appointed to act for death-row prisoners by the Supreme Court of Singapore’s Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences and for impecunious defendants by the Law Society Pro Bono Services. We have also acted pro bono in landmark cases involving human rights, the rule of law, and constitutional liberties.
2021 SIAC arbitration involving a shareholder dispute: Acted for the Respondent in a dispute arising out of a ‘Make Whole’ obligation alleged by the Claimant to entitle him to over USD 128 Million. We argued that its application was modified by a series of amendments and variations to the shareholders’ agreement between the parties. The matter involved the interpretation of high-value commercial contracts concluded across multiple jurisdictions, and in particular, the application of ‘Make Whole’ obligations where the original commercial circumstances in which the contract was made, have changed. The matter reached an amicable resolution in 2021.
2020 SIAC arbitration involving a service agreement: Acted for the Claimants in Expedited Procedure arbitration proceedings seated in Singapore involving a claim of USD 1 Million. The dispute arose out a service agreement between the parties where the Claimants provided brokerage, technical and/or advisory services to the Respondent, including the introduction of clients. The Respondent refused to pay the Claimant approximately USD 1 Million of service fees owed under the service agreement. The dispute was a heavily contested one even at the interlocutory stage, which includes, challenges to jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We have also made an application for this dispute to be brought under the recently enacted Expedited Procedure framework of the SIAC Rules. This application was also contested by the Respondent. The final arbitral award was issued in our favour, where the Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimants damages, full costs of arbitration and legal costs with interest.
2019 UNCITRAL arbitration involving an oil & gas dispute: Acted for the Respondent, an oil exploration company in a USD 126 Million UNCITRAL arbitration against a Middle Eastern state-owned company. The dispute arises out of a joint venture agreement under which the Claimant was designated as the operator of a petroleum-producing oil field. One of the issues in question is the validity of the Claimant’s cash calls made over several months amounting to approximately USD 26 million. The arbitration was heavily contested at the interlocutory stage involving, inter alia, an application for interim measures, an application for the Tribunal to fix deposits/costs in unequal pending the determination of the dispute under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013. The matter reached an amicable resolution in 2020.
Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd  SGCA 47;  SGHC 197: Successfully acted for a former financial services director (“FSD”) in (a) persuading the Court of Appeal that the defendant, a financial institution, had been negligent in the preparation of a reference check for the FSD, and (b) obtaining damages of SGD 3.2 million plus interest for the FSD. In its seminal judgment, the Court of Appeal pronounced that employers have owe ex-employees a duty of care in tort in the preparation of reference checks for future employers, which extends beyond the duty not to make false statements of fact.
Broadley Construction Pte Ltd v Alacran Design Pte Ltd  SGCA 25: The Court of Appeal was invited to consider the extent to which misrepresentations made at the pre-contractual stage be actionable where the true position appears clearly from the express terms of the contract. The Court of Appeal accepted our argument that where the true position is reflected clearly in the express terms of the contract, which the claimant places importance on and which the defendant would expect the claimant to read and understand, such misrepresentations cannot be actionable even if the claimant had signed the contract without reading its terms.
UFN v UFM  SGCA 54: Successfully persuaded the Court of Appeal to affirm find in our client’s (the wife’s) favour in a case raising novel questions of matrimonial law of public interest. These questions include:- (a) the extent to which a foreign divorcee’s decision not to exhaust remedies in the foreign divorce courts precludes an application for financial relief in Singapore under Chapter 4A of the Women’s Charter; (b) the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens to the Singapore courts’ exercise of discretion to allow financial relief under Chapter 4A of the Women’s Charter.
Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter  SGCA 56: We acted for a medical doctor, Dr Wee Teong Boo at the Court of Appeal. In the judgement below, Dr Wee was acquitted of the offence of rape, but was convicted for outrage of modesty and sexual assault by digital penetration. In a cross-appeal, we argued that the complainant’s testimony did not meet the unusually convincing standard due to its internal and external inconsistencies and that digital penetration was incompatible with the Prosecution’s case and the complainant’s own account. As to the rape charge, we argued that the acquittal was supported by the medical evidence that Dr Wee was suffering from erectile dysfunction. And further, that Dr Wee could not be faulted for not admitting to his condition in his statement to the police due to the nature of his defence and the Prosecution’s late disclosure of relevant medical evidence. The Court agreed with our submissions and cleared Dr Wee of all charges.
Public Prosecutor v Yeo Sow Nam: We acted for a medical doctor, Dr Yeo Sow Nam, who was accused of 4 counts of outrage of modesty. Under cross-examinations by ourselves, the complainant admitted to lying in court by giving false descriptions and physical demonstrations of how Dr Yeo had allegedly molested her. Following this, the Prosecution withdrew the case and applied for a discharge amounting to an acquittal for all charges against Dr Yeo.
Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor  SGCA 90: Successfully acted for an accused person who had initially been convicted of drug trafficking, an offence that could potentially result in the death penalty. After five appearances before the Court of Appeal and two High Court trials (a legal battle that lasted seven years), the Court of Appeal, by a 4:1 majority set aside its previous conviction and acquitted the accused. This is the first time in Singapore’s legal history that a court has exercised its inherent power to review and set aside its own decision convicting an accused person.