Author: Ronald JJ Wong

Posted on

Debt Recovery in Singapore: The Complete Legal Guide

 

Debt Recovery in Singapore: The Complete Legal Guide

Someone owes you money. What can you actually do about it?

If a customer has not paid your invoices, a borrower has not repaid a loan, a contractor has received payment and disappeared, or a guarantor is refusing to honour a guarantee, Singapore law gives you a clear route to recovery.

This guide sets out the whole process end to end: assessing whether you have a claim, weighing the practical considerations before taking legal action, choosing the right forum, the letter of demand, the statutory demand, commencing proceedings under the Rules of Court 2021, getting judgment quickly, and, the part most creditors underestimate, actually enforcing that judgment and getting paid.

Continue reading “Debt Recovery in Singapore: The Complete Legal Guide”

Posted on

Case: Kuvera Properties v Far East Opus Pte Ltd [2026] SGCA 34 – Court of Appeal decides on law of limitation for equitable rescission and damages under Misrepresentation Act

The law of limitation can be a maze.

Somehow this is the first time certain important issues on the interpretation of the Limitation Act (LA) has gone before the apex court in Singapore and perhaps anywhere else in the common law world.

In Kuvera Properties v Far East Opus Pte Ltd [2026] SGCA 34, the claimant claims to have been misrepresented to in 2013 but only discovered the misreps in Nov 2022, and filed a suit in May 2024 for rescission and damages under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act (MA). The court below struck out the claim as being time barred.

The 5-person CA bench made important legal holdings.

– Damages claim under s 2(1) MA is subject to 6-year limitation, as it’s founded on tort, akin to tort of deceit albeit without dishonesty, or alternatively a claim under written law.
– It interacts with s 24A (3 years limitation from knowledge and right to bring action) and s 29 LA (postponement of limitation period to when claimant did or could with reasonable diligence discover a mistake) such that a claimant can elect the more favourable outcome if both apply. This is because misrep is a species of mistake.
– Equitable rescission for innocent misrep is not subject to any limitation under the LA.
– This is because it is a claim within equity’s exclusive jurisdiction and not within equity’s concurrent jurisdiction with the common law, whereas s 6(7) LA only applies to the latter.
– The CA considered a historical overview of the development of the law on this and concluded that s 6(7) codifies the historical practice of the equity courts applying limitation to claims within equity’s concurrent jurisdiction. The rationale was to prevent a claimant from reframing a common law cause of action as an equitable one to evade limitation that applies to the common law cause of action.
– Claims for breach of fiduciary duty are subject to limitation within s 22(2) by analogy to claims for breach of trust.
– Dishonest assistance and knowing receipt claims are not subject to limitation under LA but are governed by laches.

The CA allowed the appeal on the facts. The claim under s 2(1) was not time barred as the claimant did not and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the misrep as of May 2018. The equitable rescission claim is not subject to any limitation under LA but laches. Laches however has not been advanced.

Posted on

Case: Singapore Court of Appeal rules in Valency International Pte Ltd v JSW International Tradecorp Pte Ltd [2026] SGCA 1 on tort of conversion in context of trade financing and demurrage dispute involving misdelivery and trust receipts

This case is factually rather curious, but the legal points arising from it are of interest to those involved in trade financing, securities, and generally, anyone who deals in security and movable property.

Continue reading “Case: Singapore Court of Appeal rules in Valency International Pte Ltd v JSW International Tradecorp Pte Ltd [2026] SGCA 1 on tort of conversion in context of trade financing and demurrage dispute involving misdelivery and trust receipts”

Posted on

Singapore Court of Appeal considers trade mark infringement and passing off claim involving internet keyword advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28

Singapore Court of Appeal considers trade mark infringement and passing off claim involving internet keyword advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28

https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGCA_28

Brief Facts

As discussed in my comment on the High Court decision of this case here, this case concerned the defendant’s use of keywords “east coast podiatry”, “Podiatry East Coast”, and/or “Podiatrist East Coast” (the “Signs”) in Google ads. The ads appeared in various forms with links redirecting users to the defendant’s website, which did not contain the claimant’s Mark or any of its variants. The defendant used the Signs to advertise the impending opening of a new branch at the East Coast area, following advice from a Google consultant to use location-based keywords. The Court of Appeal (CA) dismissed the claimant’s appeal.

Continue reading “Singapore Court of Appeal considers trade mark infringement and passing off claim involving internet keyword advertising: East Coast Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd v Family Podiatry Centre Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 28”

Posted on

Pre-action discovery against non-parties: litigation strategy with limitations – L’Oreal v Shopee [2025] SGHCR 2

In this SGHC case of L’Oreal and another v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd [2025] SGHCR 2, the applicants had successfully obtained pre-action discovery orders in respect of sellers on Shopee’s platform.

They went back to court arguing that Shopee failed to fully comply with the earlier disclosure order, seeking for Shopee to explain its user verification process, to obtain verified information of the sellers, to be restrained from disclosing to the sellers info about the proceedings, and to be permitted to inform the Ministry of Home Affairs of Shopee’s failure/inability to verify sellers’ identities against government-issued documentation.

Continue reading “Pre-action discovery against non-parties: litigation strategy with limitations – L’Oreal v Shopee [2025] SGHCR 2”

Posted on

Bid-Rigging by Contractors in CCCS Infringement Decision

Bid-Rigging in Latest CCCS Infringement Decision

The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) just announced significant penalties (>S$4.6 million) against two contractors for bid-rigging in PA tenders for community club upgrading works in an infringement decision against Trust-Build Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd. and Hunan Fengtian Construction Group Co., Ltd.

What is Bid-Rigging?

It’s when businesses that should be competing independently for a tender secretly agree on aspects of their bids. Eg:
~ Agreeing on who should “win” the tender.
~ One bidder submitting a deliberately high “cover bid” so another’s lower (but still inflated) bid looks attractive.
~ Agreeing not to bid at all, or to withdraw a bid.

In this case, CCCS found that a contractor prepared the tender submissions and proposed bid prices for the other, eliminating competition, although neither ultimately won the tenders because PA noticed potential bid rigging conduct before awarding tender.

Having handled competition infringement cases and appeals, I’d highlight some key legal issues in bid rigging cases:

~ The Competition Act catches formal agreements and also informal understandings, “concerted practices” or even a coordinated pattern of behaviour where competitors knowingly substitute cooperation for the risks of competition can be enough to prove collusion. Even just informally exchanging commercially sensitive information (like bid price) with a competitor before submitting a tender can be potentially infringing.

~ Anti-competitive “object”; market harm unnecessary: Bid-rigging is considered to have its very purpose or “object” to distort competition, so CCCS generally doesn’t need to prove that the bid-rigging actually harmed the market or led to higher prices (though it often does). Once bid-rigging conduct is established liability is found.

While every case is fact-specific, businesses under investigation for bid-rigging might consider:

~ Arguing that the evidence does not establish any any bid rigging conduct. Or that any similar bidding behaviour was coincidental or based on independent assessment of the tender, not a result of collusion.

~ Arguing that CCCS has not followed due process in its investigation and decision-making. Decisions can be appealed to the CAB.

~ Even if infringement is found, companies can submit factors that might reduce the financial penalty, such as the limited scope or duration of involvement, cooperation with the CCCS, or the implementation of robust compliance programmes post-discovery.

~ CCCS has a leniency programme where the first party to report a cartel activity and cooperate may receive immunity or significant reductions in penalties.

Bid-rigging is bad for business – hefty fines, reputational damage, and potential disqualification from future tenders.

Posted on

In litigation against former employees, Singapore High Court finds breach of confidentiality, non-compete, and loyalty obligations, inducement of breach of contract, and conspiracy with employer

In this decision of ATT Systems (S’pore) Pte Ltd and another v Centricore (S) Pte Ltd and others [2025] SGHC 13, the Singapore High Court held, among other things, that the general non-compete obligations were valid and enforceable against the former employees. The Court found that the defendants had breached confidentiality obligations, non-compete and loyalty obligations, induced breaches of contract by the former employees, and engaged in a conspiracy to cause damage by such means.

Continue reading “In litigation against former employees, Singapore High Court finds breach of confidentiality, non-compete, and loyalty obligations, inducement of breach of contract, and conspiracy with employer”

Posted on

Workplace Fairness Bill passed into law – first anti-discrimination employment legislation in Singapore

The Workplace Fairness Bill was passed in the Singapore Parliament yesterday. It is the first anti-discrimination employment legislation in Singapore.  It transforms the existing voluntary Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices into enforceable regulations. Here are some key points and actionable steps for employers and HR practitioners.

Continue reading “Workplace Fairness Bill passed into law – first anti-discrimination employment legislation in Singapore”