Madeline graduated from the University of Southampton with Bachelor of Laws (Honours) in 2014 and was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in 2016.
Madeline’s primary area of practice is in litigation and dispute resolution, with a focus in commercial and civil disputes, insolvency and restructuring and criminal matters. She has also represented and advised clients in intellectual property disputes, contested family and probate proceedings and corporate matters.
Beyond her legal experience and knowledge, Madeline is familiar with concepts relating to accounting, business, management and computer systems. These knowledge, skills and experience beyond law have equipped her with the ability to scrutinise and understand various documents, consider the practical aspects of cases and advise clients accordingly, including highlighting any potential pitfalls and ensuring sufficient safeguards are in place when drafting, reviewing and/or advising clients on contractual matters.
Some of Madeline’s notable case are as follows:
Commercial / Civil Disputes
- Acted for a Singapore company and its subsidiary based in the United Arab Emirates in their claim against a former employee and his wife for knowing receipt, breach of trust, breach of employment agreement, breach of employee’s duties and/or monies had and received.
At the commencement of proceedings, the companies applied for, and obtained, worldwide freezing injunctions to restrain the former employee and his wife from disposing their assets in Singapore and abroad. As part of the investigations, up to 7 years of bank records from 13 bank accounts in various currencies were analysed.
The companies obtained judgments amounting to more than SGD 7 million against the former employee and his wife.
- Ryobi Tactics Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another matter  4 SLR 1324;  SGHC 11: Acted for a company in their applications for injunction to restrain calls on 4 performance bonds on the ground of unconscionability. The High Court granted the applications in respect of 3 performance bonds. The appeals filed by the beneficiary of the performance bonds were dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
- Sahara Energy International Pte Ltd v Chu Said Thong and another  SGHC 272: Acted for a Senior Trader who faced claims by his former employer for breach of contract, breach of employee’s duties and negligence. The Senior Trader filed a counterclaim for wrongful termination.
- Acted for an individual in a shareholders’ dispute that resulted in a web of claims – involving allegations of conspiracy to injure, breach of fiduciary duties and misrepresentation – amongst the company, shareholders and investors who entered into investment agreements with the company.
- Acted for investors in various cases where claims were made against investment companies for breach of contracts, claim under a personal guarantee and conspiracy by lawful and unlawful means.
- RJC Resource Pte Ltd and another v Koh Lee Hoo  SGHC 278: Acted for a company in its claim for misrepresentation, monies had and received and claim under guarantee.
- Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania v Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd  1 SLR 890;  SGCA 19 (an appeal of the decision in Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd v Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania  3 SLR 103;  SGHC 222): Acted for the owner of a property in an application to set aside the adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004.
Insolvency & Restructuring
- Acted for creditors and debtor company in contested winding up proceedings.
- Acted for liquidators of companies in various cases where the insolvent companies claimed against its directors, shadow directors and / or related parties for undue preference, undervalue transactions, breach of director’s duties and/or conspiracy by lawful and unlawful means.
- Acted for a group of 6 shipping companies in their applications to be placed under judicial management.
Criminal & Regulatory Offences
- Acted for an individual who was charged under Section 82(3) of the Securities and Futures Act 2001. The Prosecution applied for, and the Court ordered, a discharge amounting to an acquittal in respect of the said charge.
- Acted for an individual who faced a total of 4 charges – 2 charges under Section 332 of the Penal Code 1871, 1 charge under Section 426 of the Penal Code 1871 and 1 charge under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906.
Following several representations, 1 charge under Section 332 of the Penal Code 1871 to a reduced charge under Section 14(1)(a) of the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015, while the Prosecution issued a stern warning in respect of the remaining charges and applied for a discharge amounting to an acquittal for these charges.
- Acted for an individual who pleaded guilty to charges under the Remote Gambling Act 2014, Common Gaming Houses Act 1961 and Organised Crime Act 2015.
- Acted for an individual who claimed trial to multiple charges under the Women’s Charter for procuring individuals for the purpose of prostitution, harbouring individuals knowing that they have been procured for the purpose of prostitution and living in part on the earnings of prostitution and managing a brothel, and a charge under Section 9(a) of the Massage Establishments Act 2017 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code 1871.
- Public Prosecutor v Rakesh Kumar Prasad  SGMC 35: Represented an individual who was charged with outrage of modesty under Section 354(1) of the Penal Code 1871 and use of criminal force under Section 352 of the Penal Code 1871 at trial and in the Magistrate’s Appeal.
- Public Prosecutor v Jason Wong Boon Chong  SGDC 183: Assisted in a trial involving an individual who claimed trial to a charge of receiving stolen property under Section 411 of the Penal Code 1871.
- Public Prosecutor v Liu Hong Yue  SGDC 153: Assisted in a trial and subsequent Magistrate’s Appeal involving an individual who was charged with cheating under Section 420 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code 1871.
- Assisted in a trial involving a company and its director who were charged under Section 20(1)(a) read with Section 31(1) of the Building Control Act 1989 for permitting the carrying out the following without permit from the Commissioner of Building Control of: (a) building works without plan approval; and (b) structural works.