Week 23, 2026 (1–7 JUN 2026)

This Week's Specials

the pineapple tarts — the signals worth acting on

01WED · ⬡ JUDGMENT

SGDC departs from the rule that a defendant bears costs for setting aside a default judgment in Shariffah Zaiton Binte Syed Agil Alsagoff v Rita Zahara Binte Mohamed Nazeer [2026] SGDC 127, citing claimant's conduct under ROC 2021.

The court ordered costs to be in the cause rather than against the defendant, departing from the usual practice of awarding costs to the successful applicant. The court reasoned that the claimant's refusal to consent to the setting aside violated the ROC 2021 Ideals regarding the avoidance of unnecessary litigation expenses and efficient use of court resources.

Why it mattersThis highlights the court's willingness to use cost orders to penalize parties who fail to adhere to the ROC 2021 Ideals by refusing reasonable settlement or procedural concessions.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

02WED · ⬡ JUDGMENT

SGHCF in [2026] SGHCF 16 holds that the structured approach in ANJ v ANK remains the default method for dividing matrimonial assets in short single-income marriages.

The court addressed whether the structured approach should be bypassed in short single-income marriages. It held that the non-application of this approach in TNL was a specific rule for long single-income marriages, and that following USB, the structured approach continues to apply to short marriages, including those with a single income.

Why it mattersPractitioners should continue to apply the structured approach as the default framework for asset division in short marriages, even when only one spouse provides income.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

03THU · ⬡ JUDGMENT

High Court in [2026] SGHC 121 clarifies the two-stage inquiry for the “ought reasonably to know” limb under s 15(1) of the Public Order Act 2009.

The Court established a two-stage test to determine if an accused

Why it mattersCriminal practitioners must advise clients that the

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

04THU · ⬡ JUDGMENT

SGHCF in A v R [2026] SGHCF 18 clarifies that s 17(3)(b)(ii) of the MCA 2008 does not permit revocation of a donee's appointment based on conduct occurring prior to the appointment.

The court addressed whether allegations of a donee's past misconduct were relevant to grounds for revoking an appointment based on conduct contravening authority or not being in the donor's best interests. Applying a purposive approach, the court held that s 17(3)(b)(ii) of the MCA 2008 is subject to a temporal limitation, meaning only conduct occurring after the appointment can be considered.

Why it mattersThis establishes a temporal boundary for assessing a donee's fitness to serve, protecting the donor's autonomy by preventing the use of pre-appointment history to invalidate a chosen appointment.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

05FRI · ⬡ JUDGMENT

High Court holds in Deepak Mishra v Rashmi Bothra [2026] SGHC(A) 17 that the presence of certain illegal transactions within a running account is insufficient to render the entire account unenforceable.

The Appellants argued that the illegality of specific transactions (LC Discount Trades) tainted the entire running account, making it unenforceable. The Court rejected this, holding that a claim for a running account balance requires determining the validity of each individual transaction, and the Appellants failed to provide authority for the principle that illegal transactions materially taint an otherwise indivisible account.

Why it mattersLitigants cannot rely on the illegality of isolated transactions to invalidate an entire running account unless they can establish that the illegality permeates the whole account.

JUDICIARY READ JUDGMENT ↗

the week's batch
cooled & sorted

★ THE WEEKLY BAKE ★

The Week in Days

This Week's Specials

SGDC departs from the rule that a defendant bears costs for setting aside a default judgment in Shariffah Zaiton Binte Syed Agil Alsagoff v Rita Zahara Binte Mohamed Nazeer [2026] SGDC 127, citing claimant's conduct under ROC 2021.

SGHCF in [2026] SGHCF 16 holds that the structured approach in ANJ v ANK remains the default method for dividing matrimonial assets in short single-income marriages.

High Court in [2026] SGHC 121 clarifies the two-stage inquiry for the “ought reasonably to know” limb under s 15(1) of the Public Order Act 2009.

SGHCF in A v R [2026] SGHCF 18 clarifies that s 17(3)(b)(ii) of the MCA 2008 does not permit revocation of a donee's appointment based on conduct occurring prior to the appointment.

High Court holds in Deepak Mishra v Rashmi Bothra [2026] SGHC(A) 17 that the presence of certain illegal transactions within a running account is insufficient to render the entire account unenforceable.

What Rose to the Top

the week's batchcooled & sorted

★ THE WEEKLY BAKE ★

The Week in Days

This Week's Specials

SGDC departs from the rule that a defendant bears costs for setting aside a default judgment in Shariffah Zaiton Binte Syed Agil Alsagoff v Rita Zahara Binte Mohamed Nazeer [2026] SGDC 127, citing claimant's conduct under ROC 2021.

SGHCF in [2026] SGHCF 16 holds that the structured approach in ANJ v ANK remains the default method for dividing matrimonial assets in short single-income marriages.

High Court in [2026] SGHC 121 clarifies the two-stage inquiry for the “ought reasonably to know” limb under s 15(1) of the Public Order Act 2009.

SGHCF in A v R [2026] SGHCF 18 clarifies that s 17(3)(b)(ii) of the MCA 2008 does not permit revocation of a donee's appointment based on conduct occurring prior to the appointment.

High Court holds in Deepak Mishra v Rashmi Bothra [2026] SGHC(A) 17 that the presence of certain illegal transactions within a running account is insufficient to render the entire account unenforceable.

What Rose to the Top

the week's batch
cooled & sorted