LO YEW SENG v ASTRAWATI ALUWI

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(A) 18 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC(A) 18 High Court (Appellate Division) 17 June 2026 AD/CA 95/2025 51 min read

12 cases cited

Featured in the weekly digest — week of 15–21 June 2026 →

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	17 June 2026
Judges	Ang Cheng Hock, Debbie Ong Siew Ling, See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Tort
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, Drew & Napier LLC, Chan Tai-Hui, Jason, Chloe Shobhana Ajit, Gan Yun Han Rebecca, Jimmy Yim Wing Kuen, Kek Meng Soon Kelvin, Kenneth Wang Ye, Lau Wen Jin, Nikhil Daniel Angappan

Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 18, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 17 June 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Tort — Conspiracy Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation

Practice Areas

Tort

Judges (3)

Ang Cheng Hock Delivered Debbie Ong Siew Ling Coram See Kee Oon Coram

Counsel (10)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm Drew & Napier LLC Firm Chan Tai-Hui, Jason Counsel Appellant Chloe Shobhana Ajit Counsel Respondent Gan Yun Han Rebecca Counsel Appellant Jimmy Yim Wing Kuen Counsel Respondent Kek Meng Soon Kelvin Counsel Appellant Kenneth Wang Ye Counsel Appellant Lau Wen Jin Counsel Respondent Nikhil Daniel Angappan Counsel Respondent

Parties (6)

Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha Third Party Infinity Capital Group Ltd Third Party LC Capital Ltd Third Party Astrawati Aluwi Respondent Chen Yicheng Defendant Lo Yew Seng Appellant

Case Significance

In Lo Yew Seng v Astrawati Aluwi [2026] SGHC(A) 18, the Appellate Division — Ang Cheng Hock JCA, delivering the judgment, with Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and See Kee Oon JAD — allowed Lo Yew Seng’s appeal in part on 17 June 2026 against Astrawati Aluwi v Lo Yew Seng [2025] SGHC 188. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s finding of fraudulent misrepresentation against Lo Yew Seng over Astrawati Aluwi’s agreement to purchase a residential unit in the Tellus Hirafu development in Niseko, Japan, but set aside the findings on negligent misstatement and conspiracy by unlawful means, as well as the costs order below, in a judgment citing 12 Singapore authorities and the Evidence Act.

[2026] SGHC(A) 18 explained

LO YEW SENG v ASTRAWATI ALUWI ([2026] SGHC(A) 18) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 17 June 2026. It is categorised under Tort. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 [2026] SGHC(A) 18 about?

LO YEW SENG v ASTRAWATI ALUWI ([2026] SGHC(A) 18) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Conspiracy”, “Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit”, and “Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC(A) 18 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC(A) 18 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 188 and [2024] SGHC 289. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

What did the Singapore Appellate Division decide in Lo Yew Seng v Astrawati Aluwi ([2026] SGHC(A) 18)?

On 17 June 2026, the Appellate Division allowed Lo Yew Seng’s appeal in part: it affirmed the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation over the Tellus Hirafu, Niseko development purchase, but set aside the negligent misstatement, conspiracy by unlawful means, and costs findings from [2025] SGHC 188.