Joy Tan
WongPartnership, Singapore

In Singapore, group litigation is conducted through a procedure known as representative action.^[1] Similar to class actions in other jurisdictions, representative actions promote access to justice by allowing claimants to pool their resources to pursue dispute resolution. This is especially the case where the high costs of litigation in comparison to each individual claimant’s loss make it economically unfeasible for an individual to pursue action alone.

Claimants looking to bring a representative action before Singapore courts must satisfy a two-stage test.^[2] The first is a threshold requirement of common interest, where: (1) the members of the represented group must be identified by an objective criterion which bears a rational relationship to the common issues being asserted; (2) the proposed representative claimants must adequately represent the interests of the class of represented persons; (3) there must be significant issues of fact or law common to all the claimants in the proceeding; and (4) all claimants must benefit from the relief granted by the court. Once the first stage is satisfied, the court will then embark on a discretionary exercise to weigh the benefits, such as the need to save time and expenses, against any prejudice that the representative proceedings may cause, such as the defendant being precluded from raising separate defences, which would only have been available against certain claimants rather than the class of claimants as a whole.

Before the Singapore courts, only a few representative actions have been pursued, with only a handful of reported cases. However, over the last three years, there has been an increase in the number of collective actions in Singapore and/or involving Singapore investors, as well as potential regulatory developments to enhance collective recourse involving Singapore securities law.

Recent cases

In the recent case of Kupetz, Jonathan and others v Terraform Labs Pte Ltd and others and another appeal and other matters [2026] SGCA(I) 1, involving the crash of the well-known cryptocurrency Terra LUNA on 7 May 2022, ten representative claimants brought the first representative action before the Singapore International Commercial Court, on behalf of 356 other investors who had purchased the cryptocurrency TerraUSD and its sister cryptocurrency, the LUNA token, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy on the part of the defendants.

It was argued that the representative action ought to be struck out for lack of common interest, given that the investors’ various claims differed in terms of reliance, causation and economic loss. The Court took a practical approach and bifurcated the action into two tranches, with common issues of law and fact that could be determined on a collective basis (such as the actionability of the fraudulent representations) in the first tranche, and issues of law and fact that require an individual assessment (such as inducement, reliance, causation and quantum of damages) being reserved for the second tranche. This balanced approach, which mirrored that taken in other jurisdictions, such as that of the UK Supreme Court in Lloyd v Google LLC [2022] AC 1217, allowed for efficiency, as well as permitting the defendants to raise available defences against different individual investors.^[3]

The case of Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd and others v Ok Tedi Mining Ltd and others [2021] SGHC 205 was the first collective action brought in Singapore in respect of environmental damage. Foreign claimants, representing over 147,000 individuals from communities in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, sued for breaches of fiduciary duty and unlawful means conspiracy, alleging that the Singapore-incorporated defendants, among others, failed to fulfil undertakings to utilise funds held beneficially on behalf of the affected communities to ameliorate the effects of environmental damage caused by mining activities. The claim that such fiduciary duties were in fact owed was found to be unsustainable, and the dismissal of the claim was upheld on appeal in 2023.

Proposed legislative enhancement

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Singapore’s central bank and financial sector regulator, recently issued a consultation paper outlining its proposals to make group litigation more viable for retail investors who have suffered losses due to market misconduct.^[4]

To address the key hurdles that retail investors must overcome to commence group litigation, namely limited know-how and resources to coordinate efforts and a lack of funding, the MAS has proposed introducing the option for an independent party to be appointed as a designated representative and given legal standing to bring the action on behalf of aggrieved investors. This would be an alternative avenue to the current representative process previously discussed, which requires one or more investors to act as the lead claimant(s).

The appointment of such a designated representative would be subject to safeguards: a sufficient number of affected investors must have consented to the designated representative acting on their behalf; the designated representative must not have any conflicts of interest that may compromise its ability to act; and the designated representative must not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the case.

The MAS has also proposed establishing a grant scheme to co-fund meritorious investor actions to address the funding gap (in Singapore, contingency fees arrangements and litigation funding are presently not permitted). This funding assistance would also be subject to safeguards against opportunistic or overly litigious activity.

These developments signal an increased focus on collective redress mechanisms as a means to improve access to justice and Singapore’s reputation as a global financial and dispute resolution centre.