Leading Insurance Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
5 reported cases · January 2025 to March 2026
Updated
Across 5 reported Insurance judgments in Singapore courts (January 2025 to March 2026), Central Chambers Law Corporation is the most active firm by reported case count (2 cases), Ramasamy s/o Karuppan Chettiar is the most active lawyer (2 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 5 Insurance judgments in Singapore between January 2025 and March 2026, spanning the High Court (SGHC), Court of Appeal (SGCA) and Singapore International Commercial Court (SGHC(I)). The cases involve 7 judges, 11 law firms and 35 lawyers. Subject matter ranges from motor vehicle insurance, including recovery of an unsatisfied judgment from the Motor Insurers' Bureau under section 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, to marine insurance questions on the duty of fair presentation and breach of warranties under the UK Insurance Act 2015.
Data coverage: between January 2025 and March 2026
Which law firms handle the most Insurance cases in Singapore?
Central Chambers Law Corporation, WongPartnership LLP and Incisive Law LLC each handled 2 Insurance cases between January 2025 and March 2026, the most in the dataset. A total of 11 firms appeared in Insurance cases during this period.
Who are the leading Insurance lawyers in Singapore?
Tan Chee Meng, Teo Jen Min and Jayakumar Suryanarayanan each recorded 2 Insurance case appearances between January 2025 and March 2026, the most active in the dataset. A total of 35 lawyers appeared in Insurance cases during this period.
Which judges handle the most Insurance cases in Singapore?
Sundaresh Menon, Steven Chong and Hri Kumar Nair each heard 1 Insurance case in the dataset between January 2025 and March 2026. A total of 7 judges presided over the 5 Insurance judgments recorded during this period.
How many Insurance cases are heard in Singapore courts?
The dataset records 5 Insurance judgments between January 2025 and March 2026. The cases were heard primarily in the High Court (SGHC), with additional matters before the Court of Appeal (SGCA) and the Singapore International Commercial Court (SGHC(I)).
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Insurance cases?
Among the 5 Insurance cases, sub-topics include motor vehicle insurance involving the Motor Insurers' Bureau and section 9(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, marine insurance on the duty of fair presentation and breach of warranties, and accident insurance.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Marine insurance — Whether loss caused by perils of the seas 1 case
Marine insurance — Whether vessel was a constructive total loss 1 case
Accident Insurance 1 case
Motor vehicle insurance — Recovery of unsatisfied judgment from Motor Insurers’ Bureau (“MIB”) 1 case
Motor vehicle insurance — Section 9(1) Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960 1 case
Marine insurance — Duty of fair presentation — Sections 3, 7 UK Insurance Act 2015 1 case
Marine insurance — Breach of warranties — Sections 10, 11 UK Insurance Act 2015 1 case
Marine insurance — Whether vessel was a constructive total loss — Clause 6.1.1 Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) 1.10.83 CL 280 1 case
Marine insurance — Whether loss caused by perils of the seas — Whether vessel was a decrepitude or debility — Clause 6.1.1 Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) 1.10.83 CL 280 1 case
General principles — Condition precedent — Non-disclosure — Risk 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.