Leading Administrative Law Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
12 reported cases · March 2024 to May 2026
Updated
Across 12 reported Administrative Law judgments in Singapore courts (March 2024 to May 2026), Attorney-General's Chambers is the most active firm by reported case count (3 cases), Suang Wijaya is the most active lawyer (1 case appearances). This ranks named firms and lawyers by how often they appear in reported decisions — a descriptive count of activity, not an assessment of quality or standing.
Overview
The dataset records 12 Administrative Law judgments in Singapore between March 2024 and May 2026, ranking the practice area 31st of 49 areas tracked. The cases were concentrated in the Singapore High Court (SGHC, 13 entries in the court distribution), with the Court of Appeal (SGCA, 4) and the Appellate Division (SGHC(A), 1) also represented. Recurring sub-topics included judicial review on Wednesbury unreasonableness grounds (2 cases), judicial review generally (2), and the remedy of declaration (2). Across these matters, 15 judges, 19 firms, and 55 lawyers appeared.
Data coverage: between March 2024 and May 2026
Which law firms handle the most Administrative Law cases in Singapore?
Attorney-General's Chambers leads in Administrative Law with 3 cases between March 2024 and May 2026, followed by Arbiters Inc Law Corporation, Virginia Quek Lalita & Partners, and RCL Chambers Law Corporation with 1 case each. 19 firms appeared in Administrative Law cases during this period.
Who are the leading Administrative Law lawyers in Singapore?
Choo Zheng Xi, Donaven Foo, and Tan Zhengxian Jordan each recorded 1 appearance in Singapore Administrative Law cases between March 2024 and May 2026. With no lawyer appearing more than once, representation was widely distributed across the 55 lawyers documented in the dataset.
Which judges handle the most Administrative Law cases in Singapore?
Andre Maniam has handled 3 Administrative Law cases between March 2024 and May 2026, the most of any Singapore judge in the dataset. Sundaresh Menon (2 cases) and Tay Yong Kwang (2 cases) are also among the most active, drawn from 15 judges total.
How many Administrative Law cases are heard in Singapore courts?
The dataset records 12 Administrative Law cases in Singapore between March 2024 and May 2026. The Singapore High Court (SGHC) accounted for the largest share with 13 entries in the court distribution, followed by the Court of Appeal (SGCA) with 4.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Administrative Law cases?
The leading sub-topics across the 12 Administrative Law cases are judicial review on Wednesbury unreasonableness grounds (2 cases), judicial review generally (2), and the remedy of declaration (2). Natural justice and quashing, prohibiting, and declaratory remedies also feature among the catchwords recorded.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Remedies — Declaration 2 cases
Judicial review 2 cases
Judicial review — Wednesbury unreasonableness 2 cases
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies 1 case
Judicial review — Duty to give reasons — Whether there was a breach of a duty to give reasons 1 case
Judicial Review 1 case
Judicial review — Application for leave to apply for judicial review to quash the Coroner’s findings 1 case
Natural justice — Allegations of breach of natural justice 1 case
Natural justice 1 case
Judicial review — Principles relating to review of decisions of religious associations 1 case
Disciplinary proceedings 1 case
Judicial review — Irrelevant considerations 1 case
Natural justice — Procedural fairness — Sufficient information and opportunity to present case 1 case
Remedies — Quashing order 1 case
Remedies — Prohibiting order 1 case
Key Statutes
Court Distribution
Cases
Methodology & disclaimer
Firms and lawyers are ranked by the number of reported Supreme Court judgments they appear in, published on eLitigation. Counts reflect appearances in reported decisions only — unreported matters, settlements, and advisory work are not included. This is a descriptive count of activity by reported case volume, not an assessment of quality or standing, and not an endorsement or recommendation of any firm or lawyer. It is information, not legal advice.