ABE ISAAC (PTE) LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 27 July–2 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chua Lee Ming |
| Charges / claim | Administrative Law |
| Counsel | Arbiters Inc Law Corporation, Attorney-General's Chambers, Dierdre Grace Morgan, Gabriel Yap, Jasleen Kaur, Vijay Kumar Rai, Wong Li De Brian |
Source: [2026] SGHC 156, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Abe Isaac (Pte) Ltd v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 156 is a decision of Chua Lee Ming J in the General Division of the High Court, dated 31 July 2026, in Originating Application No 711 of 2025 (Summons No 619 of 2026). The applicant operates the nightclub Naughty Girl at Orchard Towers, and since 31 July 2023 its liquor licence has permitted sales only until 11.59pm. A licensing officer rejected its December 2024 application for extended trading hours under a policy covering all establishments at Orchard Towers. The applicant sought a Quashing Order on judicial review grounds including irrationality and fettering of discretion. The court found it had not shown the decision was irrational and dismissed SUM 619, fixing costs at $15,000 for the permission application and $14,000 for SUM 619, plus disbursements.
[2026] SGHC 156 explained
ABE ISAAC (PTE) LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2026] SGHC 156) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 31 July 2026. It is categorised under Administrative Law. 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 156 about?
ABE ISAAC (PTE) LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL ([2026] SGHC 156) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Administrative Law — Judicial review — Irrationality”, 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 156 consider?
The judgment refers to LC Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard an application for a Quashing Order by Abe Isaac (Pte) Ltd, which operates the Naughty Girl nightclub at Orchard Towers. A licensing officer had rejected its December 2024 application for extended trading hours to sell liquor beyond 11.59pm, applying a policy for Orchard Towers. The court held the applicant had not shown the decision was irrational and dismissed SUM 619. It ordered costs of $15,000 and $14,000 plus disbursements.
What was Abe Isaac (Pte) Ltd v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 156 about?
A nightclub at Orchard Towers challenged a licensing officer's refusal of extended liquor trading hours beyond 11.59pm, seeking a Quashing Order. The High Court found the applicant had not shown the decision was irrational and dismissed the application.
What costs were ordered in [2026] SGHC 156?
The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $15,000 plus disbursements for the application for permission to commence judicial review, and $14,000 plus disbursements for SUM 619, noting the applicant's disregard for the limited scope of permission.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (10)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 156)