Leading Trusts Lawyers & Firms by Reported Cases — Singapore
47 reported cases · January 2024 to May 2026
Updated
Across 47 reported Trusts judgments in Singapore courts (January 2024 to May 2026), Drew & Napier LLC is the most active firm by reported case count (8 cases), Jaikanth Shankar 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
Trusts is a recognised practice area in Singapore's reported caselaw, with 47 judgments handed down between January 2024 and May 2026, ranking 11th of 49 practice areas tracked in a dataset of 1,374 cases. The bulk of these matters were heard in the High Court (SGHC), with smaller numbers in the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)), the Court of Appeal (SGCA), and single appearances before a High Court Registrar (SGHCR) and the District Court (SGDC). The reported subject matter spans both express and implied trusts as well as accessory liability and trustee duties.
The most frequent sub-topics among these 47 cases were resulting trusts (7), constructive trusts (5), breach of trust remedies (4), presumed resulting trusts (4), and common intention constructive trusts (4). Across the period, 28 judges, 70 firms, and 243 individual lawyers appeared in trusts matters, reflecting a broad field of participants rather than a narrow specialist bar.
Data coverage: between January 2024 and May 2026
Which law firms handle the most Trusts cases in Singapore?
Drew & Napier LLC leads in trusts with 8 cases between January 2024 and May 2026, followed by WongPartnership LLP (6 cases) and Davinder Singh Chambers LLC (4 cases). In total, 70 firms appeared in Singapore trusts cases during this period.
Who are the leading Trusts lawyers in Singapore?
Jaikanth Shankar and Lim Wei Lee are the most active trusts lawyers in Singapore, each with 3 case appearances between January 2024 and May 2026. Narayanan Sreenivasan, Thio Shen Yi, and Poon Kin Mun Kelvin follow, each appearing in 2 trusts cases during this period.
Which judges handle the most Trusts cases in Singapore?
Hri Kumar Nair has handled 7 trusts cases between January 2024 and May 2026, the most of any Singapore judge in this area. Kannan Ramesh and Debbie Ong Siew Ling (6 cases each) are also among the most active, followed by Mohamed Faizal and Choo Han Teck (5 each).
How many Trusts cases are heard in Singapore courts?
The dataset records 47 Trusts judgments between January 2024 and May 2026. Most were decided in the High Court (SGHC), with the remainder in the Appellate Division (SGHC(A)), the Court of Appeal (SGCA), a High Court Registrar, and the District Court.
What are the main sub-topics in Singapore Trusts cases?
Among the 47 Trusts cases, the leading sub-topics are resulting trusts (7 cases), constructive trusts (5), breach of trust remedies (4), presumed resulting trusts (4), and common intention constructive trusts (4). Trustee duties and knowing receipt also recur in the reported catchwords.
Is Trusts a common area of litigation in Singapore?
Trusts ranks 11th of 49 practice areas in the dataset, with 47 reported judgments, about 3.4% of the 1,374 cases tracked between January 2024 and May 2026. The most common sub-topics are resulting trusts, constructive trusts, and breach of trust remedies.
Case Volume by Year
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Resulting trusts 7 cases
Constructive trusts 5 cases
Constructive trusts — Common intention constructive trusts 4 cases
Breach of trust — Remedies 4 cases
Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts 4 cases
Trustees — Duties 3 cases
Accessory liability — Knowing receipt 3 cases
Express trusts 2 cases
Constructive trusts — Common intention constructive trust 2 cases
Accessory liability — Dishonest assistance 2 cases
Quistclose trusts 2 cases
Constructive trusts — Institutional constructive trust — Fraud 1 case
Resulting trusts — Illegality 1 case
Resulting trusts — Parties’ intentions 1 case
Unlawful trust — Whether trust is unenforceable for illegality 1 case
Presumed resulting trusts 1 case
Common intention constructive trusts 1 case
Trustees — Removal 1 case
Constructive trusts — Common intention constructive trusts — Executor claiming common intention constructive trust over property —Whether there is sufficient evidence of common intention 1 case
Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts — Executor claiming presumed resulting trust over property — Whether there is sufficient evidence of financial contributions to purchase price of property 1 case
Property — Application for power of sale of trust property 1 case
Express trusts — Certainties — Whether a letter of indemnity sufficiently identifies the subject matter of the purported trust 1 case
Express trusts — Certainties — Whether a letter of indemnity sufficiently evinces a putative settlor’s intention to create a trust 1 case
Resulting trusts — Sole financial responsibility for 25 of the properties fell on the mother — Whether there was a resulting trust in the mother’s favour 1 case
Constructive trusts — Common intention constructive trusts — Daughter alleged that her mother made an oral representation over 20 years ago that they would purchase properties together as equal owners in the future, while the mother alleged that she had always told the daughter that she was only borrowing the daughter’s name for the properties — Whether there was a common intention for either party to hold their various legal interests in the 26 properties on trust for the other 1 case
Express trusts — Certainties 1 case
Constructive trusts — Institutional constructive trust 1 case
Express trusts — Constitution 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.