Justin Chan

Associate Director
Advocate and Solicitor, Singapore


Justin CHAN is an Associate Director at LVM Law Chambers LLC.

Justin has an active court and international arbitration practice, covering a wide range of complex, high-value, and multi-jurisdictional disputes. His matters include representing clients in contentious matters involving contractual claims, shareholders, directors’ duties, probate-related, and employment disputes. Over the course of his career, Justin has also worked closely with insolvency practitioners from established accounting firms.

Justin has a keen interest and specialises in advising both domestic and foreign clients on the intricacies of jurisdictional challenges and enforcement of foreign judgments in Singapore.

Outside of practice, Justin is a regular tutor in the preparatory course for the Singapore Bar Examinations run by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, where he teaches modules on insolvency and ethics. He was also previously an adjunct faculty member of the School of Law of the Singapore Management University (2013-2017). In 2016, Justin was appointed as amicus curiae under the Supreme Court’s Young Amicus Curiae scheme. His involvement and efforts were recognised in the reported decision in Cher Ting Ting v PP [2017] 3 SLR 1009.

Justin has also contributed to a number of local leading publications, including the Singapore Civil Procedure and the Singapore Academy of Law Journal.

Justin graduated from the Singapore Management University and was called to the Singapore Bar in 2013. In 2018, Justin obtained his LL.M. from the University College London, scoring Distinctions in Insurance Law, The Law of Unjust Enrichment and International Commercial Litigation.

Case Highlights

  • Advising and acting for the judicial managers of a Singapore company in on-going proceedings against a former director for breaches of his director’s duties, for the sum of US$150m constituting the loss caused to company due to his breaches. The judicial managers claim that the director had failed to prevent significant drawdowns on banking facilities, pursuant to which monies were disbursed on the strength of what were in fact non-existent transactions.
  • Advised and acted for a multi-national company in arbitration proceedings (conducted under the auspices of the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association) over a distribution agreement relating to a novel coronary stent to be marked and sold in Japan.
  • Advised and acted for a main contractor in a series of claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act brought by a sub-contractor in the aggregate sum of S$12.5million, which included a successful objection against the late adduction of documents which led to the sub-contractor withdrawing its claims of up to $11million.
  • Advised and acted in a matter concerning the validity of a will contested on the basis that the testator lacked the requisite testamentary capacity to execute the will in question, specifically that the testator was burdened by the existence of prior overvalued ideas/delusions at the material time.
  • Advised and acted in a matter concerning the validity of a deed of family arrangement, which pertained to a draft will prepared for the patriarch of the family but which was never signed. The matter eventually proceeded to be considered before the Court of Appeal.
  • Advised and acted for a former co-founder of a Catalist-listed company in the conduct of an appeal before the Singapore Court of Appeal in respect of the lower court’s decision that the co-founder had breached his fiduciary duties and was involved in a conspiracy to injure the company in respect of a $20million facility that was entered into by the company. The appeal concerned the novel issue as to whether the doctrine of novus actus interveniens could operate to limit the extent of a wrongdoing director’s liability.
  • Acted for a director in respect of disputes concerning the affairs of a family-run Singapore company. The disputes spawned proceedings before the High Court which raises the issue as to whether a director could seek to remove a co-director by a formal request to resign in a 2-director scenario. Another novel issue that arose was whether a beneficiary of shares (of the company) could invoke what is known as the Wong Moy exception to seek relief and to commence a section 216A derivative action against a wrongdoing director.
  • Advising and acting in an ongoing-matter seeking a stay of Singapore proceedings in favour of arbitration. The matter involved questions as to the extent that a claim in conspiracy, which itself based on several pre-contractual misrepresentations, could be said to fall within the scope of the contractually agreed reference to arbitration.
  • Advised one of the leading companies in the aviation industry in Singapore in negotiations pertaining to agreements for the provision of, inter alia, security, ground-handling and inflight catering services to an established airline company.
  • Advised and assisted in the rendering on several expert advices on a wide range of matters of Singapore law. Such work included advices on patent infringement (for the purposes of US International Trade proceedings), the recognition and enforceability of Singapore judgments / arbitral awards overseas, and merits of prospective/on-going actions or appeals.
  • Advised and acted for several MCSTs on a diverse range of issues relating to the management of their respective strata-titled developments.


  • Member, Law Society of Singapore
  • Member, Singapore Academy of Law
  • Young Amicus Curiae (2016)
  • Adjunct Faculty, School of Law, Singapore Management University (2013-2017)
  • Facilitator, Preparatory Course leading to Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations (2013-present)


  • Problems in the Recognition and Enforcement of US Class Action Judgments in Singapore” (2013) 25 SAcLJ 51
  • Conflict of Laws Issues: The Republic of the Philippines v Maler Foundation [2013] SGCA 66” Singapore Law Blog (25 May 2014)
  • Clarity in Effecting Service Outside of Jurisdiction: Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK [2015] SGHC 144” Singapore Law Blog (18 June 2015)

See our other lawyers’ profiles