TAN HAI PENG MICHEAL & Anor v Tan Cheong Joo & 4 Ors
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHC 217 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 3 November 2025 concerning Civil Procedure and Credit and Security, specifically addressing citation of fictitious authority and money and moneylenders. The judgment was delivered by S Mohan. The case was brought by Tan Hai Peng Micheal and others (plaintiff) against Fong Tat Holding Co Pte Ltd and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by David Lim & Partners and P S Goh & Co. The judgment cites 10 cases (8 Singapore, 2 foreign) and references 6 statutory provisions, including the Banking Act, the Evidence Act, and the Financial Advisers Act.
[2025] SGHC 217 explained
TAN HAI PENG MICHEAL & Anor v Tan Cheong Joo & 4 Ors ([2025] SGHC 217) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 3 November 2025. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Credit and Security. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2025] SGHC 217 about?
TAN HAI PENG MICHEAL & Anor v Tan Cheong Joo & 4 Ors ([2025] SGHC 217) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Citation of fictitious authority” and “Credit and Security — Money and moneylenders — Illegal moneylending”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 217 consider?
The judgment refers to Banking Act, Evidence Act (Cap 97), Financial Advisers Act, and Moneylenders Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGHC 217 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHCR 33 and [2024] SGHC 234. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2025] SGHC 217?
Within this corpus, [2025] SGHC 217 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
Two brothers disputed the ownership and management of three condominium units and their associated rental income, with the plaintiff claiming beneficial interests under resulting and constructive trusts. The court found a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff for his financial contributions to two of the properties, and ordered an accounting of rental income.
What was decided in [2025] SGHC 217?
[2025] SGHC 217 (TAN HAI PENG MICHEAL & Anor v Tan Cheong Joo & 4 Ors) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 3 November 2025 addressing Civil Procedure and Credit and Security, specifically citation of fictitious authority and money and moneylenders. The judgment was delivered by S Mohan.
Who were the parties in TAN HAI PENG MICHEAL & Anor v Tan Cheong Joo & 4 Ors?
The plaintiff in [2025] SGHC 217 was Tan Hai Peng Micheal, Tan Hai Seng Benjamin, and the defendant was Fong Tat Holding Co Pte Ltd, Tan Cheong Joo. Legal representation included P S Goh & Co and David Lim & Partners. The case was decided on 3 November 2025 in the High Court (General Division).
Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 217?
[2025] SGHC 217 was delivered by S Mohan in the High Court (General Division) on 3 November 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure and Credit and Security.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 217 cite?
[2025] SGHC 217 cites 10 prior decisions, including 2 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Banking Act, Evidence Act, Financial Advisers Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (10)
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 217)