Leading Abuse of Process Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
20 reported cases · January 2024 to May 2026
Updated
Across 20 reported Abuse of Process judgments in Singapore courts (January 2024 to May 2026), Attorney-General's Chambers is the most active firm by reported case count (4 cases), Sruthi Boppana 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
Abuse of Process accounts for 20 reported Singapore judgments between January 2024 and May 2026, ranking 20th of 49 practice areas in this dataset. The cases were evenly split between the High Court (SGHC) and the Court of Appeal (SGCA), with eight each, followed by four in SGHCR, two in SGHC(I), and one in the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)). The most frequently recorded sub-topic was the Henderson v Henderson doctrine (7 cases), followed by collateral purpose (5), the Riddick principle (3), and inconsistent positions (2). Across these cases, 19 judges, 31 firms, and 100 individual lawyers appeared.
Data coverage: between January 2024 and May 2026
Which law firms handle the most Abuse of Process cases in Singapore?
The Attorney-General's Chambers leads in Abuse of Process with 4 cases between January 2024 and May 2026, followed by WongPartnership LLP (3 cases) and Allen & Gledhill LLP (2 cases). In total, 31 firms appeared in these cases during this period.
Who are the leading Abuse of Process lawyers in Singapore?
Sruthi Boppana is among the most active Abuse of Process lawyers in this dataset with 2 case appearances between January 2024 and May 2026, alongside Suresh s/o Damodara (2), Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah (2), Derek Kang Yu Hsien (2), and Hui Kwai Weng, Jonathan (2), out of 100 lawyers recorded.
Which judges handle the most Abuse of Process cases in Singapore?
Steven Chong has handled 4 Abuse of Process cases between January 2024 and May 2026, the most of any judge in this dataset. Judith Prakash (3 cases) and Sundaresh Menon (3 cases) are also among the most active, out of 19 judges recorded.
How many Abuse of Process cases are heard in Singapore courts?
This dataset records 20 Abuse of Process judgments between January 2024 and May 2026. The High Court (SGHC) and the Court of Appeal (SGCA) heard eight each, followed by four in SGHCR, two in SGHC(I), and one in the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)).
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Abuse of Process cases?
Across the 20 Abuse of Process cases, the leading recorded sub-topic is the Henderson v Henderson doctrine with 7 cases, followed by collateral purpose with 5, the Riddick principle with 3, and inconsistent positions taken across proceedings with 2.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Henderson v Henderson doctrine 7 cases
Collateral purpose 5 cases
Riddick principle 3 cases
Inconsistent positions 2 cases
Appellant alleging counsel below rendered inadequate legal assistance — Whether allegation of inadequate legal assistance meritless and in abuse of process 1 case
Collateral purpose — Appellant seeking retrial under guise of application to adduce fresh evidence 1 case
Inconsistent positions — Appellant seeking to adduce fresh evidence that he elected not to adduce at trial 1 case
Riddick principle — Cogency of the evidence 1 case
Riddick principle — Whether leave should be granted to lift the Riddick undertaking 1 case
Riddick principle — Whether proceedings for the enforcement of judgment debt were brought for a collateral purpose 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.