“Empathetic, discerning, well-prepared, and composed under pressure – the mark of a brilliant lawyer.”

Significant Matters & Transactions

• Ang Bee Yian v Ang Siew Fah [2019] SGHC 178: Daniel acted for the Plaintiff in his first trial as lead counsel, before the High Court of Singapore. The Plaintiff successfully claimed against the Defendant for (i) the return of her investment capital (in excess of US$300,000), (ii) a declaration that the Defendant holds the Plaintiff’s investment capital, interest, and all traceable proceeds or assets thereof on constructive trust for the Plaintiff, (iii) a declaration that the Defendant holds 25% of a condominium property on trust for the Plaintiff, and (iv) an order that the Defendant is to provide an account of the expenses and rental proceeds for the condominium property, and pay all wrongfully withheld net rental proceeds to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s counterclaims, which were in excess of S$1 million, were completely dismissed. This case involved complex issues such as breach of fiduciary duties, trust and constructive trust, and limitation of actions. In particular, Daniel was successful in establishing, through submissions and cross-examination, that the Defendant had admitted in her pleadings as well as in various SMS text messages to owing the capital investment to the Plaintiff (even though, on the face of the SMS text messages, these admissions by the Defendant were qualified, or not clear and unequivocal), which had the effect of resetting the limitation period.
• Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal [2019] SGHC 289 (High Court); [2020] SGCA 107 (Court of Appeal): Acted as assisting counsel for the Plaintiff in a cross-border dispute involving complex issues of inter alia leave to serve out of jurisdiction, place of payment, governing law, appropriate forum, stay of proceedings, and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act.
• Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang and another [2021] SGHC 154 (High Court); [2022] SGHC(A) 5 (Appellate Division): Acted as assisting counsel and successfully defended an individual against a claim for purported legal fees of around S$2 million. The High Court decision is now Singapore’s leading case that establishes a statutory defence under the Legal Profession Act against a claim for fees for unauthorised legal services or advice, and was affirmed by the Appellate Division.
• Represented the Ngee Ann Kongsi in a high profile and widely reported property dispute involving the ownership of the Teochew Building at Tank Road.
• Represented (as assisting counsel) a group of unvaccinated individuals in a high-impact public interest constitutional challenge and judicial review of the Vaccine Differentiation Safe Management Measures and Workforce Vaccination Measures that affected the constitutional rights of an estimated 132,000 unvaccinated persons and 48,000 workers.
• Chan Lung Kien v Chan Shwe Ching [2018] SGCA 24: Acted as assisting counsel for this matter that was heard in the Singapore Court of Appeal before a quorum of 5 appellate judges (which is only reserved for cases of significant jurisprudential value / impact). The team managed to convince the Court of Appeal to find that the previous Court had read / interpreted certain English authorities incorrectly.
• Chan Lung Kien v Chan Shwe Ching [2017] SGHC 136 (High Court): Acted as assisting counsel for the Plaintiff and obtained a court order to set aside a previous decision of another High Court judge in Chan Shwe Ching v Leong Lai Yee [2015] 5 SLR 295 (which had previously departed from Malayan Banking). This forms part of the line of cases holding that a judgment cannot be enforced by way of a WSS on jointly held property (contrary to another line of cases), and it also clarifies when and on whose application a Court can set aside its own ex parte decision.
• Grande Corporation Pte Ltd v Cubix Group Pte Ltd and others [2018] SGHC 13: Acted as assisting counsel, and successfully struck out the Defences of the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants for the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants’ breach of an Unless Order and for their contumelious conduct in the underlying specific discovery proceedings. As a result, judgment was obtained against the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants without the Plaintiffs having to go to trial.
• Grande Corp Pte Ltd v Cubix Group Pte Ltd and others [2019] SGHC 146 (High Court); Toh Wee Ping Benjamin and another v Grande Corp Pte Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 208 (Court of Appeal): Acted as assisting counsel for the Plaintiff in assessment of damages proceedings, and successfully obtained judgment for loans given pursuant to fraudulent misrepresentations, as pleaded. The Court of Appeal made important clarifications on the applicable principles pertaining to the types of averments which are deemed to be admitted when a defence is struck out, and the remedies or reliefs which may be granted.
• Solvadis Commodity Chemicals Gmbh v Affert Resources Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 210 (High Court):Acted as assisting counsel for an independent creditor. This is the first reported decision in Singapore whereby the Court approved a liquidator’s assignment of the causes of action (and not merely the fruits of the causes of action) of a company undergoing liquidation to a third party litigation funder.
• Solvadis Commodity Chemicals Gmbh v Affert Resources Pte Ltd in HC/CWU 17/2017 (High Court): Acted as assisting counsel for a German chemical company in successfully converting a creditors’ voluntary winding up into a compulsory, Court ordered winding up. The team was able to convince the Court that an independent investigation not only had to be carried out as to the affairs of the company in liquidation, but also seen to be carried out.
• Stephanie Tang Swan Leen and ors v Tan Su San (the personal representative of the deceased Tan Seng Huat) [2018] SGDC 218 (District Court): Acted as assisting counsel for the Plaintiffs and successfully established liability against the Defendant driver who suffered a stroke before colliding into the Plaintiffs. The Court adopted a 2015 English Court of Appeal’s objective test requiring “total loss of control”. This is the first Singapore decision on the applicable legal standard to establish a defence of automatism under tort law.
• Acting for the founding members of a Singapore company (which has various subsidies and business partners worldwide) who were forcefully suspended from their duties. Assisted in taking out an application for leave to commence a statutory derivative action against the remaining directors, and for an interim injunction to protect the trade secrets belonging to the said Singapore company.
• Successfully defended, as lead counsel, a summary judgment application taken out against a Singapore shipping company and their directors for defaulting on a loan extended to them.
• Acted as lead counsel in successfully registering a foreign Court judgment obtained in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia.
• Acted as assisting counsel for a large timber company in Singapore in a Security of Payment Act (Cap. 30B) adjudication. The team successfully reduced the claim amount by more than 72%.

What Clients Say About Daniel

• “Daniel was very patient and is a good listener. He took the time to fully understand our case, do the necessary research, and explain the legalities to us in simpler terms. He is very approachable and easy to communicate with, and always at hand to answer our queries. Additionally, he had a good team of colleagues who worked with him. We are very grateful to have had Daniel work on our case.” – Marilyn & Sukhbir
• “He articulates ideas very clearly and substantiates the things he says with very good analogies. He listens well even when I’m flustered and probably incoherent. He stays very close or ahead of deadline and is very committed. I remember Daniel answering my call when he was on ICT reservist duties. He understands commercial and private contracts very well! I learnt a great deal from Daniel.” Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific
• “I just want to thank you for taking up our case and representing us as our legal counsel. I know it was not an easy case, it was a long and tedious process, but thank you so much to your prowess, justice, patience, guidance and dedication to our case.” – Sharon Yeo
• “Both Dominic and his associate Daniel were extremely professional; timely, thorough, knowledgeable and effective.” –Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific
• “Thanks to Dominic and his team, I have recently won an overwhelming victory in court. A very down to earth and talented lawyer, Dominic is dedicated, and very thorough. Nothing escapes him. He has a sharp legal mind and is excellent at sifting out the truths from the lies. Great work Dominic!  I really appreciate what you have done for me.” – Phua Swee Khiang
• “Dominic Chan and his team went above and beyond and exceeded all of my expectations in every way. Dealing internationally, he made a positive impact on my case as the knowledge he used along with the professionalism was instrumental. Being on different international time zone he worked on hours that were not expected and always did so with positivity and service. He uses common sense as well as legal knowledge equally and his work was very thorough in everything he did. He treated our case as if it was his own with passion and conviction and approaches the toughest problems with only solutions. I am very grateful that I found Dominic and the Characterist firm and could not recommend anyone as highly as I do with him.” – Benjamin M. Sturner, Founder & CEO, Leverage Agency
• “[Dominic and his team have] “no apparent shortcomings” –Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific
• “Always put himself in my shoes but with his legal expert’s hat to advise on my best interest … Very responsive and professional.” –Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific
• “Responsive, considered, diligent.” –Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific
• “Knowledgeable, friendly, good at explaining his work. Able to suggest solutions and workarounds to problems.” –Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific
• “Daniel listens empathetically and tries his best to understand what we are putting across. He will paraphrase and seek our clarification. Then he will propose solutions and recommend which is best for us in our situation, explaining the complications and implications (if any).” –Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific
• “From our initial consultation to the resolution of the matter, Daniel’s professionalism and expertise were evident at every step. He was able to advise us based on our best interests. His strategic approach, attention to detail, and effective communication ensured that I was well informed and confident in the decisions we made together. His responsiveness to my enquiries and the clarity with which he explained legal nuances were invaluable and greatly appreciated. Thanks to his efforts, the resolution of my legal matter was not only successful but also conducted with the utmost professionalism and integrity.” –Client quoted in Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific