Attorney-General
Attorney-General is a government agency in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 211 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 257 counsels. Through 6 law firms. Their track record shows a 67.8% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 64 complex cases, representing 30.3% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation
Attorney-General has been represented by 6 law firms and 257 counsels.
| Law Firm | Cases Handled |
|---|---|
| WongPartnership LLP | 1 case |
| Attorney-General’s Chambers | 1 case |
| Attorney-General | 1 case |
| State Counsel | 1 case |
| Attorney-General Chambers | 1 case |
| Attorney-General’s Chambers (International Affairs Division) | 1 case |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Attorney-General's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 3.7
- Complex Cases
- 64 (30.3%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
| Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 242.8 parties avg |
| Neutral | 314.8 parties avg |
| Partial | 113.5 parties avg |
| Withdrawn | 12.0 parties avg |
| Won | 1433.7 parties avg |
| 15.0 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
| Year | Cases |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 314.0 parties avg |
| 2024 | 78.0 parties avg |
| 2023 | 132.6 parties avg |
| 2022 | 216.0 parties avg |
| 2021 | 86.1 parties avg |
| 2020 | 122.4 parties avg |
| 2019 | 73.7 parties avg |
| 2018 | 63.3 parties avg |
| 2017 | 93.9 parties avg |
| 2016 | 84.6 parties avg |
| 2015 | 152.5 parties avg |
| 2014 | 122.5 parties avg |
| 2013 | 162.8 parties avg |
| 2012 | 122.4 parties avg |
| 2011 | 82.8 parties avg |
| 2010 | 62.3 parties avg |
| 2009 | 62.8 parties avg |
| 2008 | 72.6 parties avg |
| 2007 | 43.5 parties avg |
| 2006 | 62.8 parties avg |
| 2005 | 43.8 parties avg |
| 2004 | 33.0 parties avg |
| 2003 | 43.0 parties avg |
| 2002 | 54.6 parties avg |
| 2001 | 83.3 parties avg |
| 2000 | 15.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Attorney-General's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
| Outcome Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| 1(0.5%) | |
| Won | 143(67.8%) |
| Withdrawn | 1(0.5%) |
| Partial | 11(5.2%) |
| Lost | 24(11.4%) |
| Neutral | 31(14.7%) |
Monetary Outcomes
| Currency | Average |
|---|---|
| SGD | 11,590.6591 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
| Year | Total Cases |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 3 |
| 2024 | 3 115 |
| 2023 | 4 2227 |
| 2022 | 3 2316 |
| 2021 | 3 116 |
| 2020 | 2 111 |
| 2019 | 3 133 |
| 2018 | 2 24 |
| 2017 | 3 126 |
| 2016 | 3 314 |
| 2015 | 4 21210 |
| 2014 | 2 210 |
| 2013 | 3 1141 |
| 2012 | 4 4116 |
| 2011 | 2 26 |
| 2010 | 2 15 |
| 2009 | 2 15 |
| 2008 | 2 25 |
| 2007 | 3 112 |
| 2006 | 2 15 |
| 2005 | 2 13 |
| 2004 | 2 12 |
| 2003 | 3 112 |
| 2002 | 2 23 |
| 2001 | 3 152 |
| 2000 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 211 cases
| Case | Role | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
04 Feb 2025 | Respondent | WonApplication to strike out originating application allowed because the applicants lacked standing and their challenges had no chance of success. |
15 Jan 2025 | Other | WonObjection to the admission application was successful. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
12 Jan 2025 | Appellant | WonThe court allowed the appeal, setting aside the findings of the Second DT on the touting charges and ordering the Law Society to apply for the appointment of another Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the matter. |
27 Oct 2024 | Respondent | PartialThe Attorney-General objected to the admission, and the court imposed a Minimum Exclusionary Period, though shorter than the requested four years. |
19 Aug 2024 | Applicant | WonApplication to strike off the Respondent from the Roll was granted; costs of the application fixed in favour of the Attorney-General in the aggregate sum of $3,500 inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
01 May 2024 | Applicant | WonThe Attorney-General's application to strike the Respondent off the roll of advocates and solicitors was allowed. |
26 Mar 2024 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed due to the appellants' lack of standing. |
21 Mar 2024 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General's objection to the applicant's admission was upheld. |
29 Feb 2024 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $20,000, inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
30 Jan 2024 | Applicant | LostThe Attorney-General's application for review was dismissed. |
02 Nov 2023 | Applicant | PartialApplication allowed in principle, subject to further submissions on the amount the Liquidators should be allowed to deal with. |
15 Oct 2023 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney-General did not object to the application. |
05 Sep 2023 | Respondent | WonThe court found in favor of the Attorney-General, upholding the Correction Directions. |
16 Aug 2023 | Respondent | WonApplication dismissed; costs awarded to the Respondent fixed at $5,000, inclusive of disbursements. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
25 Jul 2023 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully defended the appeal against the Correction Direction. |
20 Jun 2023 | Respondent | WonCosts awarded in the sum of $5,500 all-in (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
24 May 2023 | Respondent | WonThe application for reinstatement of appeal and extension of time to file documents was dismissed. |
11 May 2023 | Respondent | WonThe application for judicial review was dismissed in favor of the Attorney-General. |
08 May 2023 | Respondent | LostThe Attorney-General's objection to the abridgement of time was overruled. |
05 Apr 2023 | Applicant | WonJudgment for the Attorney-General; costs of OS 694 fixed at $4,000 and costs of SUM 3816 fixed at $8,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
02 Mar 2023 | Defendant | PartialCosts awarded to the defendant for successful defense of Tan and partially successful defense of the SPF. |
15 Feb 2023 | Intervener | NeutralThe Attorney-General intervened to provide views on the interpretation of ss 19H and 19J of the CTMA. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
18 Jan 2023 | Defendant | LostThe plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment was successful, but the remaining claims were dismissed. |
24 Nov 2022 | Defendant | WonThe application by the Claimants was dismissed. |
24 Aug 2022 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed; Xu Yuan Chen to pay the Attorney-General the costs of the appeal fixed at $15,000 (inclusive of disbursements). Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
03 Aug 2022 | Respondent, Defendant | WonThe appeal was dismissed in favor of the Attorney General. |
27 Jul 2022 | Plaintiff | LostThe Attorney-General's application for review of the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision was dismissed. |
26 Jul 2022 | Respondent, Defendant | WonCosts of $4,000 awarded against Mr. Yeo. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
24 Jul 2022 | Respondent | WonCosts of $6,000 awarded to the Attorney-General, to be paid by the Singapore Democratic Party. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
20 Jul 2022 | Respondent | WonThe appeal was dismissed in favor of the Attorney-General. |
18 Jul 2022 | Intervener | NeutralThe application for leave to seek a quashing order against the Admissibility Decision was dismissed. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
22 Jun 2022 | Defendant | WonCosts of the three applications, fixed at $20,000, are to be borne personally by Mr Cheng and Mr Ravi jointly and severally. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
05 Jun 2022 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney-General objected to both the Withdrawal Application and the Sealing Order Application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
01 Jun 2022 | Respondent | WonThe application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was dismissed. |
29 May 2022 | Appellant, Respondent | LostThe Attorney-General's appeal against the High Court's decision to grant leave for judicial review and a stay of execution was dismissed. |
25 May 2022 | Respondent, Defendant | WonCosts awarded against the appellant's counsels. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
11 May 2022 | Defendant | WonCosts of OS 1025 and SUM 4742 fixed at $10,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be paid by Mr. Ravi and Mr. Cheng (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
09 May 2022 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General was awarded costs of $7,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the court if not agreed between the parties, to be paid by the Singapore Democratic Party. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
26 Apr 2022 | Applicant | WonAttorney-General’s application to rescind the redaction and sealing orders allowed. |
20 Apr 2022 | Respondent | WonThe appeal against the Attorney-General was dismissed. |
17 Apr 2022 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney General objected to the applications of the six applicants. |
28 Mar 2022 | Respondent | WonThe appeal was dismissed, in favor of the Attorney-General. |
08 Mar 2022 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed in favor of the Attorney-General. |
27 Feb 2022 | Respondent, Defendant | WonAppeal dismissed; Section 377A deemed unenforceable unless Attorney-General signals change in prosecutorial policy. |
29 Dec 2021 | Respondent | WonCosts of $5,000 awarded to the Attorney-General (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
01 Dec 2021 | Defendant | WonThe court dismissed the plaintiffs' originating summons. |
29 Nov 2021 | Defendant | WonCosts of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements, awarded to the defendant, to be paid personally by the plaintiffs' counsel. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
07 Oct 2021 | Respondent | WonThe court dismissed the appeal. |
19 Sep 2021 | Respondent | NeutralNo objections to the application. |
26 Aug 2021 | Defendant, Respondent | PartialThe court upheld the restrictions on BWC footage and the denial of access to certain information, but ordered inspection of CCTV footage. |
22 Aug 2021 | Respondent | WonThe court dismissed the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. |
07 Feb 2021 | Respondent | WonThe court dismissed the applicant's application. |
22 Dec 2020 | Respondent | LostAppeal allowed; leave granted to commence judicial review proceedings solely on the scheduling ground. |
07 Dec 2020 | Defendant | WonJudgment in favour of the Attorney-General; the plaintiff's application was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
12 Oct 2020 | Defendant | WonThe plaintiff’s application for leave to commence judicial review under Order 53 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court is dismissed. |
21 Sep 2020 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed; awarded costs of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
29 Jun 2020 | Respondent | WonThe appeal against the Attorney-General was dismissed. |
23 Apr 2020 | Respondent | WonThe application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was dismissed. |
29 Mar 2020 | Defendant | WonThe court dismissed the plaintiff's application. |
23 Mar 2020 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed; Attorney-General awarded costs of $40,000 from Steep Rise Limited (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
18 Feb 2020 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully defended the Part 3 Correction Direction issued to The Online Citizen Pte Ltd. |
12 Feb 2020 | Defendant | WonApplications dismissed in favour of the Attorney-General. |
04 Feb 2020 | Respondent | WonThe court found in favor of the Attorney-General, upholding the Correction Directions. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore. |
07 Jan 2020 | Applicant | WonDetermination set aside; new Disciplinary Tribunal to be appointed. |
05 Nov 2019 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully defended against the applicant's application. |
17 Oct 2019 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General was involved in the proceedings, but no specific outcome was assigned to them. |
16 Sep 2019 | Respondent | WonApplication for discovery and leave to serve interrogatories dismissed. |
05 May 2019 | Respondent | PartialAppeals in RAS 1/2018 and RAS 2/2018 allowed subject to the Requesting State’s decision whether it wishes the AG to proceed further to execute its request. Originating Summons No 945 of 2017 dismissed. |
28 Apr 2019 | Defendant | WonThe originating summons was dismissed with no order on costs. |
09 Apr 2019 | Respondent | PartialThe court granted declarations that Mr. Adam adversely acquired title to the House (occupying an area of 405.5m2) in 1967 by virtue of his adverse possession and that all rights and title to the House held by the paper owners were extinguished in 1967. |
09 Apr 2019 | Respondent | PartialAppeal upheld in part, as the court found that the Appellant should have been granted leave in the court below. However, the point is academic since she has ultimately failed to obtain any of the substantive reliefs sought. |
29 Nov 2018 | Respondent | WonThe appeal against the Attorney-General's intervention was dismissed. |
04 Oct 2018 | Plaintiff | WonThe Attorney-General's application to strike out the claim and restrain the litigant was granted. |
27 Sep 2018 | Intervening Party | NeutralThe Attorney-General intervened in the appeal. |
26 Apr 2018 | Respondent | WonThe Applicant's application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was dismissed. Both parties bear their own costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
08 Apr 2018 | Respondent | WonApplication dismissed; costs to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent fixed at $10,764.35 inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
24 Jan 2018 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General was a non-party providing submissions to the court. |
29 Oct 2017 | Plaintiff | WonOrder granted to restrain the defendants from instituting or continuing proceedings in any court without the leave of the High Court. No order as to costs. |
22 Aug 2017 | Respondent | WonThe appeal was dismissed. |
16 Aug 2017 | Respondent | WonThe appeal was dismissed in favour of the Attorney-General. |
09 Jul 2017 | Defendant | WonJudgment for the Defendant; costs awarded in the amount of $6,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
06 Jul 2017 | Defendant | WonThe court dismissed the Plaintiff's application, effectively ruling in favor of the Attorney-General. |
01 Mar 2017 | Intervener | NeutralApplication for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to the Attorney-General's Chambers (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
16 Feb 2017 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General supported the applications. |
12 Feb 2017 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General, representing the Government, successfully defended against the applicant's claim. |
15 Jan 2017 | Appellant, Respondent | LostThe Attorney-General's appeal was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
27 Nov 2016 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General supported the application for ad hoc admission. |
27 Oct 2016 | Appellant | PartialThe appeal was partially allowed with orders made for document access. |
20 Oct 2016 | Defendant | NeutralEach party to bear its own costs for Summons No 5810/2015 and the Originating Summons. |
27 Sep 2016 | Defendant | WonThe court dismissed the plaintiff's application. |
04 Sep 2016 | Respondent | WonApplication to designate Ms. Lai a vexatious litigant granted; costs of $5,000 and disbursements of $2,325 awarded to the Attorney-General (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
28 Aug 2016 | Other | NeutralSupported the application for ad hoc admission. |
27 Jun 2016 | Defendant | WonJudgment in favour of the defendant. |
19 May 2016 | Respondent | WonThe respondent successfully defended the appeal. |
21 Dec 2015 | Respondent | WonThe court dismissed the applicant's application. |
08 Dec 2015 | Respondent | LostThe Attorney-General's application for an order under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act was dismissed. |
29 Nov 2015 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed in favour of the Attorney-General. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
26 Nov 2015 | Appellant | PartialThe appeal was allowed in part, with specific orders made regarding sinking fund transfers and the appointment of accountants. |
24 Nov 2015 | Respondent | LostAppeal dismissed; the conclusion we have reached makes it unnecessary for us to deal with two other grounds of challenge raised by the Appellant, namely, irrationality and procedural irregularity. It follows that the Appellant should be freed and the costs order made against him below should be set aside. We will hear the parties on any other issues that remain outstanding, including the question of costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
18 Oct 2015 | Applicant | WonThe Attorney-General's application under s 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act for a vexatious litigant order against Mdm Lai was granted. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of the jurisdiction. |
18 Oct 2015 | Respondent | WonThe respondent successfully defended against the application. No monetary amount was specified. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
04 Oct 2015 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully defended the appeal against the High Court's decision. |
16 Sep 2015 | Respondent | WonApplication for leave to apply for a Quashing Order and a Mandatory Order was dismissed. The court ordered the three applicants to be jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs fixed by me at $6,000 and disbursements amounting to $1,923.80 for this application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
07 Jul 2015 | Defendant | WonApplication to strike out the OS was granted. Ms Netto was ordered to personally pay the AG’s disbursements of both the summonses fixed at $1,514 and the AG’s costs of Summons 1788 fixed at $1,000. |
07 Jul 2015 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney-General opposed the application. |
21 Jun 2015 | Respondent | WonAppeals dismissed with costs in favor of the Attorney-General. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
24 Feb 2015 | Respondent | WonThe respondent's application to strike out the originating summons was granted. |
21 Jan 2015 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully opposed the application for an Order for Review of Detention. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Attorney-General costs of $8,500, inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
20 Jan 2015 | Applicant | PartialThe Attorney-General's application was partially successful; the Respondent was found guilty of scandalising contempt in respect of the First Article but not the Second Article. |
30 Nov 2014 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General's application to strike out the originating summons was allowed. |
26 Nov 2014 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed except for the false imprisonment claim. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
04 Nov 2014 | Respondent | WonSuccessfully resisted the application for ad hoc admission. |
27 Oct 2014 | Respondent | WonAppeals dismissed; no order as to costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
11 Sep 2014 | Respondent | WonThe application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was dismissed. No order as to costs was made. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
04 Sep 2014 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed; awarded $500 in costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
04 Sep 2014 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed; AHQ was ordered to pay $500, inclusive of disbursements, forthwith to the Government for the appeal. |
26 Jun 2014 | Respondent | WonThe application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was dismissed. |
25 Jun 2014 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully opposed the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. No order as to costs was made. |
15 May 2014 | Appellant | WonThe appeal was allowed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
29 Apr 2014 | Applicant | LostThe Attorney-General's application for leave to commence committal proceedings against Au Wai Pang was dismissed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
16 Mar 2014 | Respondent | LostThe appeal was allowed and the trust was declared void. |
13 Nov 2013 | Defendant, Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000 to the Defendant including disbursements. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed. |
05 Nov 2013 | Respondent | WonThe respondent successfully opposed the applicant's application for bail. |
31 Oct 2013 | Respondent | WonApplication for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs of $1,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
30 Oct 2013 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
01 Oct 2013 | Defendant | WonThe Plaintiff's application was dismissed. |
18 Sep 2013 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General's opposition to the application was upheld. |
16 Sep 2013 | Respondent | LostThe Attorney-General opposed the application, which was ultimately allowed. |
11 Sep 2013 | Plaintiff | WonThe Attorney-General's application to declare the defendant a vexatious litigant was granted. |
18 Aug 2013 | Defendant | WonJudgment for the Attorney-General; costs and disbursements fixed at $5000.00 to be borne personally by Koh Lau Keow (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
18 Aug 2013 | Respondent | WonAppeal allowed with costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
04 Jul 2013 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed. The court ordered each party to bear their own costs. |
15 Apr 2013 | Respondent | WonCosts of $500 awarded (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
08 Apr 2013 | Defendant | WonThe plaintiff's claim that s 377A is unconstitutional and infringes their rights under Art 12 was dismissed. |
07 Apr 2013 | Respondent | Unknown |
14 Mar 2013 | Respondent | WonCosts of $5,000 awarded to the Attorney-General (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
13 Mar 2013 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed; Appellants ordered to pay half the costs of the appeal to the Respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
14 Nov 2012 | Respondent | LostAttorney-General opposed the application for ad hoc admission. |
01 Nov 2012 | Appellant | WithdrawnThe Attorney-General withdrew the appeal against the Leave Order. |
31 Oct 2012 | Respondent | WonApplication for judicial review dismissed; no order as to costs. |
21 Oct 2012 | Respondent | WonApplication for leave to apply for prerogative orders and declarations was dismissed with costs. |
31 Jul 2012 | Respondent | WonThe application was dismissed in favour of the respondent. |
28 Jun 2012 | Respondent | WonThe application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed. |
31 May 2012 | Defendant | LostDefendant to pay $75,354.40 to the plaintiff (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
08 Apr 2012 | Respondent | LostThe Attorney-General's appeal against the decision to grant leave was unsuccessful. |
05 Mar 2012 | Defendant | WonThe defendant successfully defended against the plaintiff's application to reopen prior Court of Appeal decisions. |
26 Feb 2012 | Defendant | LostThe court declared that the President’s commutation order for the Plaintiff to be “imprisoned for life” referred to an imprisonment term of 20 years, contrary to the Defendant's position. |
30 Jan 2012 | Defendant | PartialThe defendant's application to strike out the entire claim was partially successful, with the claims related to breach of contract and rectification being struck out. |
09 Jan 2012 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully defended against the motion to re-open the judgment. |
11 Dec 2011 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General raised no objections in relation to the Applicant’s application and agreed that the legal issues in the various proceedings were of sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the Applicant’s admission. |
30 May 2011 | Defendant | WonThe plaintiff's application for a mandatory order against the Attorney-General was dismissed. No order was made with respect to costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
26 May 2011 | Respondent | WonJudgment against Appellant affirmed. |
03 Apr 2011 | Respondent | WonThe Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
30 Mar 2011 | Respondent | WonCosts of $1,200 awarded to the Attorney-General (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
14 Mar 2011 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed with costs to the Attorney-General. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
21 Feb 2011 | Defendant | WonThe Attorney-General's application to strike out the originating summons was granted with costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
30 Jan 2011 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General provided submissions at the direction of the court to clarify the scope of the Iran Resolutions, their domestic impact, and their applicability to the facts of this case. No order as to costs was made against the Attorney-General. |
23 Nov 2010 | Defendant | WonJudgment in favour of the defendant; the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs to the defendant. |
15 Nov 2010 | Applicant | WonCosts fixed at $55,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
02 Nov 2010 | Applicant | WonMr. Shadrake found guilty of the offence of contempt by scandalising the court and convicted accordingly. |
12 Aug 2010 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully defended against Yong Vui Kong's application for judicial review. |
14 Apr 2010 | Other | NeutralNon-party to the application. |
07 Feb 2010 | Respondent | WonApplication for leave to apply for mandatory orders was dismissed. Costs fixed to the Attorney-General at $4,000, inclusive of disbursements. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
29 Sep 2009 | Respondent | WonApplication for leave to apply for a mandatory order was dismissed with costs. |
25 Aug 2009 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General's objection to the application was upheld as the application was dismissed. |
12 Apr 2009 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed in favour of the Attorney-General. |
17 Feb 2009 | Applicant | WonRespondents found liable for contempt of court. |
16 Feb 2009 | Defendant | LostThe defendant has appealed against the decision to reinstate the action. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s disbursement fixed at $600 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
04 Jan 2009 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed with costs to the respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
24 Nov 2008 | Applicant | WonOrders of committal for contempt granted against the third respondent, Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia) Inc. Fine of $25,000 to be paid within 7 days. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
22 Oct 2008 | Appellant | WonThe Attorney-General's appeal was allowed, and the production order against the bank was granted. |
04 Sep 2008 | Respondent | LostThe decision of the Strata Title Board to resume the hearing of the application for approval of the en bloc sale on 7 August 2008 was quashed and the STB was ordered to resume the said hearing on Monday, 21 July 2008. |
20 Aug 2008 | Respondent | WonApplication for leave to apply for a mandatory order was refused. Originating summons dismissed with costs. |
23 Jun 2008 | Applicant | LostThe Attorney-General's application for a production order was dismissed due to the failure to exhibit the request from the foreign country. |
08 May 2008 | Defendant | WonApplication dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
30 Jan 2008 | Defendant, Respondent | WonThe defendant successfully defended the appeal against the decision to expunge the plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim. |
27 Dec 2007 | Applicant | WonThe Attorney-General's application for a restraining order against Tee Kok Boon was granted. |
16 Oct 2007 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General objected to the admission of the QC. |
06 Sep 2007 | Other | LostThe Attorney-General objected to the application, and the court ultimately dismissed it. |
03 May 2007 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed with costs. |
12 Sep 2006 | Defendant | WonOriginating Summons dismissed with costs to be taxed in favour of the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
29 Aug 2006 | Defendant | WonJudgment for the Defendant; the Plaintiff's application was dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the jurisdiction's primary currency (SGD) is assumed. |
02 Aug 2006 | Respondent | LostApplication for judge to recuse himself was granted. |
18 Jul 2006 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully opposed the application (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
21 Jun 2006 | Defendant | WonDefendant's application to dismiss the plaintiff's application was granted. Costs of the application are to be taxed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
30 Mar 2006 | Applicant | WonThe Attorney-General's application for an order of committal against Chee Soon Juan was granted. |
06 Dec 2005 | Respondent | WonRespondent's application allowed; the appellant is ordered to pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
06 Oct 2005 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General did not take a position on this application but did offer the court assistance. |
26 Sep 2005 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully opposed the stay of bankruptcy proceedings. |
16 Jan 2005 | Respondent | WonCosts awarded to the Attorney-General, to be taxed and security deposit to be paid equally to the respondents. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. Calculated amount is Attorney-General's share of the security deposit. |
28 Oct 2004 | Other | NeutralSupported the objection to the application for ad hoc admission of Mr. Henry Bernard Eder QC. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
16 Aug 2004 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney-General opposed the application. No order as to costs was made. |
13 May 2004 | Appellant | LostThe Attorney-General's appeal against the High Court's decision was dismissed. |
17 Nov 2003 | Defendant | LostThe defendant's position was rejected, and the plaintiff's claim was allowed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
20 Aug 2003 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully opposed the application to admit Nigel John Seed QC. |
14 Apr 2003 | Respondent | NeutralAppeal dismissed with costs to all three respondents. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
26 Jan 2003 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney-General successfully defended against the adverse possession claim. |
12 Sep 2002 | Plaintiff | WonJudgment for the plaintiff as claimed with costs. The plaintiff was claiming $588,983.10. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
15 Aug 2002 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney General's objection to the amendment of the Adoption Order was upheld. |
07 Jul 2002 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General left the matter to the court. |
17 Apr 2002 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney General was served with the application and provided their views to the court. The outcome of this application does not directly impact the Attorney General. |
30 Jan 2002 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney General's objection to the application was upheld, and the application was dismissed. |
30 Sep 2001 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney General successfully argued against the application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
10 Sep 2001 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney-General's role was to assist the court. The outcome was neutral. |
13 Aug 2001 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney General was a respondent in the application. |
05 Jul 2001 | Other | NeutralOutcome for the Attorney-General is not specified in the provided text. |
05 Jul 2001 | Respondent | NeutralNo outcome provided in the text. |
05 Jul 2001 | Respondent | WonThe Attorney General opposed the application, and the court dismissed the application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
23 Apr 2001 | Respondent | LostThe Attorney General's objection to the application was dismissed. |
12 Mar 2001 | Respondent | NeutralThe Attorney General was a respondent in the application. The outcome of the application was neutral to their role. |
04 May 2000 | Other | NeutralThe Attorney General was a party to the application. |