ATTORNEY-GENERAL v NG KAI HOE RAYMOND & Anor

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 162 consider?

The judgment refers to Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A) and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC 162 High Court (General Division) 4 August 2026 HC/OA 988/2025 56 min read

15 cases cited (11 SG, 4 foreign)

Featured in the weekly digest — week of 3–9 August 2026 →

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	4 August 2026
Judge	Hoo Sheau Peng
Charges / claim	Courts and Jurisdiction
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Eldan Law LLP, Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP, Emily Zhao, Gan Yingtian Andrea, Hairul Hakkim Kuthibutheen, Koh Choon Guan Daniel, Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o Narayanan, Vincent Leow

Source: [2026] SGHC 162, High Court (General Division), decided 4 August 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 14 October 2026.

Catchwords

Courts and Jurisdiction — Vexatious litigants — Order under s 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 Courts and Jurisdiction — Unmeritorious proceedings — General civil restraint order — Order under s 73D of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969

Practice Areas

Courts and Jurisdiction

Judges (1)

Hoo Sheau Peng Delivered

Counsel (9)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Eldan Law LLP Firm Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP Firm Emily Zhao Counsel for the applicant Gan Yingtian Andrea Counsel for the applicant

Hairul Hakkim Kuthibutheen Counsel for the applicant

Koh Choon Guan Daniel Counsel for the respondent Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o Narayanan Counsel for the respondent Vincent Leow Counsel for the applicant

Parties (3)

Attorney-General Applicant

Iris Koh Hsiao Pei Respondent

Ng Kai Hoe Raymond Respondent

Case Significance

Attorney-General v Ng Kai Hoe Raymond and another [2026] SGHC 162 was decided by Hoo Sheau Peng J in the General Division of the High Court on 4 August 2026. In HC/OA 988/2025 the Attorney-General asked for orders against Mr Ng Kai Hoe Raymond and Ms Iris Koh Hsiao Pei, who had instituted several actions and applications individually or jointly. The primary request was for Vexatious Litigant Orders under s 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, and the alternative was for general civil restraint orders under s 73D. The respondents argued the orders were disproportionate and curtailed access to justice as self-represented persons. The court granted a Vexatious Litigant Order against Mr Ng and a general civil restraint order against Ms Koh, to remain in force for two years, with no order as to costs.

[2026] SGHC 162 explained

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v NG KAI HOE RAYMOND & Anor ([2026] SGHC 162) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 4 August 2026. It is categorised under Courts and Jurisdiction. 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 162 about?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v NG KAI HOE RAYMOND & Anor ([2026] SGHC 162) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Courts and Jurisdiction — Vexatious litigants — Order under s 74(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969” and “Courts and Jurisdiction — Unmeritorious proceedings — General civil restraint order — Order under s 73D of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969”, 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 162 consider?

The judgment refers to Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A) and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 162 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGDC 136, [2024] SGHC 199, and [2024] SGHC 45, and 1 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

The General Division of the High Court heard an application by the Attorney-General under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 against Ng Kai Hoe Raymond and Iris Koh Hsiao Pei, who had brought several actions and applications as self-represented persons. The Attorney-General sought vexatious litigant orders under s 74 or, alternatively, general civil restraint orders under s 73D. Hoo Sheau Peng J granted a Vexatious Litigant Order against Mr Ng and a general civil restraint order against Ms Koh, for two years, and made no order as to costs.

What orders were made in Attorney-General v Ng Kai Hoe Raymond [2026] SGHC 162?

Hoo Sheau Peng J imposed a Vexatious Litigant Order on Mr Ng, requiring court permission for new and existing civil proceedings, and a general civil restraint order on Ms Koh for two years covering new proceedings.

Did the court consider the orders a bar to access to justice in [2026] SGHC 162?

No. The court stated the orders do not deprive the respondents of access to justice but qualify it, requiring permission from the General Division of the High Court as a filter before proceedings are brought.