Leading Restitution Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
28 reported cases · January 2024 to April 2026
Updated
Across 28 reported Restitution judgments in Singapore courts (January 2024 to April 2026), Shook Lin & Bok LLP is the most active firm by reported case count (5 cases), Lee Sien Liang Joseph is the most active lawyer (3 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
Restitution is a recognised practice area in Singapore's reported caselaw, with 28 judgments handed down between January 2024 and April 2026, ranking 15th of 49 practice areas in a dataset of 1,374 cases. Most were heard in the High Court (SGHC), with the remainder before the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)), the Court of Appeal (SGCA), the District Court (SGDC), a High Court Registrar (SGHCR), and the Singapore International Commercial Court (SGHC(I)). The dominant theme is unjust enrichment, which alone accounts for 12 of the reported cases, alongside failure of consideration, change of position, and subrogation; across the period 21 judges, 58 firms, and 182 individual lawyers appeared in Restitution matters.
Data coverage: between January 2024 and April 2026
Which law firms handle the most Restitution cases in Singapore?
Shook Lin & Bok LLP leads in Restitution with 5 cases between January 2024 and April 2026, followed by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (4 cases) and Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC (3 cases). In total, 58 firms appeared in Singapore Restitution cases during this period.
Who are the leading Restitution lawyers in Singapore?
Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Lin Ruizi, and Stuart Andrew Peter are the most active Restitution lawyers in Singapore, each with 3 case appearances between January 2024 and April 2026. In total, 182 lawyers appeared in Singapore Restitution cases during this period.
Which judges handle the most Restitution cases in Singapore?
Goh Yihan has handled 4 Restitution cases between January 2024 and April 2026, the most of any Singapore judge in this area. Mohamed Faizal (3 cases) is also among the most active, followed by See Kee Oon, Woo Bih Li, and Hri Kumar Nair, each with 2 cases.
How many Restitution cases are heard in Singapore courts?
The dataset records 28 Restitution judgments between January 2024 and April 2026. Most were decided in the High Court (SGHC), with the remainder across the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeal, the District Court, a High Court Registrar, and the Singapore International Commercial Court.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Restitution cases?
Among the 28 Restitution cases, unjust enrichment dominates with 12 cases, followed by total failure of consideration (3), counter-restitution for failure of consideration (2), change of position (2), and contribution from a co-debtor (2). Subrogation and mistake also feature in the catchwords.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Unjust enrichment 12 cases
Unjust enrichment — Total failure of consideration 3 cases
Unjust enrichment — Contribution from co-debtor 2 cases
Change of position 2 cases
Failure of consideration 2 cases
Unjust enrichment — Failure of consideration — Counter-restitution 2 cases
Subrogation — Section 2 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Whether claim disclosed reasonable cause of action — Whether claim factually unsustainable — Whether payment made pursuant to valid contract — Whether claimant taking inconsistent positions 1 case
Mistake — Mistake of fact — Whether mistaken payment or mistake in formation of contract 1 case
Subrogation 1 case
Ministerial receipt 1 case
Mistake — Mistake of fact 1 case
Subrogation — Securities in the form of ship mortgages granted to lender — Subrogation to extinguished securities in equity — Subrogation to extinguished securities under s 2 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 1 case
Enrichment — At the expense of — Requirement of direct enrichment — Exception for coordinated transactions — Whether it would be unrealistic to consider the transactions separately 1 case
Unjust enrichment — At the expense of 1 case
Failure of consideration — Whether failure of consideration total or partial — Whether incidental or collateral benefits can be disregarded 1 case
Failure of consideration — Total failure of consideration — Essential bargain between contracting parties — Whether benefits conferred were essential or incidental 1 case
Failure of consideration — Total failure of consideration 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Subsidiarity principle 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Defence of change of position 1 case
Unjust enrichment — Proprietary restitution 1 case
Duress 1 case
Undue influence 1 case
Key Statutes
Court Distribution
Cases
Page 2 of 2Methodology & 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.