From 1 April 2026, three changes to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 took effect that matter directly to Singapore company directors and business owners, whether your company is chasing a debtor, defending an injunction application, or facing a bankruptcy or winding up claim from a creditor. The changes come from Amendment No. 1 of 2026 to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court and dated 18 March 2026.

The amendment touches Part 9 (Interlocutory Applications), Part 19 (Bankruptcy and Winding Up Matters) and Part 22 (criminal matters, which we will not cover here as it does not affect company litigants), plus a new form in Appendix B. For a company director, the practical effect falls into two buckets: how urgent asset-freezing applications are now routed to the bench, and a new paperwork discipline imposed on creditors who are chasing a bankruptcy order against an individual debtor.

This article sets out what changed, why it matters if your company is a party to litigation, an injunction application, or insolvency proceedings, and what you should be doing differently from 1 April 2026 onwards. This is a procedural guide, not legal advice. If your company is actually facing one of these applications, looking for a lawyer who handles Singapore court litigation should be your first call.

What actually changed on 1 April 2026

Amendment No. 1 of 2026 to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 makes three substantive changes:

  • Paragraph 72 (Injunctions prohibiting the disposal of assets and search orders) was amended to clarify which applications must be heard by a Judge, as opposed to a Registrar.
  • Paragraph 160A is a brand new paragraph in Part 19, titled “Applications for bankruptcy orders filed by creditors”. It imposes a checklist and notification regime on creditors’ counsel in every represented bankruptcy application.
  • Form B48, the “Creditor’s Bankruptcy Application Checklist”, is introduced in Appendix B to support the new paragraph 160A.

The amendments took effect on 1 April 2026 and are now reflected in the consolidated Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 published by the Singapore courts.

Change one: asset freezing injunctions and search orders now go to a Judge by default

The amended paragraph 72(1) now reads that, unless otherwise directed, contested applications for injunctions prohibiting the disposal of assets (commonly called Mareva injunctions or asset-freezing orders) and applications for search orders, whether made with or without notice, will be heard by a Judge. All other applications for interim injunctions may still be heard by a Registrar.

Before this amendment, the paragraph did not draw this distinction as clearly between contested and uncontested applications for this category of order. The practical significance for a company is timing and forum. If your company is the target of an asset-freezing application, or if your company is the one applying for a freezing order against a counterparty who it believes is about to dissipate assets, a contested hearing on this specific relief will now be calendared before a Judge rather than a Registrar. This can affect how quickly a hearing date is available and the depth of argument the Court expects, since Judges hearing this category of application will often expect fuller affidavit evidence addressing urgency, risk of dissipation, and the strength of the underlying claim.

For a company that suspects a former business partner, a departing director, or a debtor is about to move assets out of reach, this reinforces that the supporting affidavit needs to be built properly the first time under paragraph 73 of the Practice Directions, addressing the reasons for proceeding without notice, the urgency, the factual basis for believing assets will be dissipated, any known defences, and an undertaking as to damages. A weak affidavit that might once have passed before a Registrar on a quieter uncontested application is less likely to survive scrutiny once the matter becomes contested before a Judge.

Practical takeaway for directors

If your company is considering an urgent freezing application against a counterparty (for example after discovering a director has redirected company funds, a topic we cover in our guide to preservation and search orders), budget for the fact that a contested hearing will be in front of a Judge, and instruct your lawyers early enough that the supporting affidavit is comprehensive rather than rushed.

Change two: a new checklist regime for creditors chasing a bankruptcy order

The bigger operational change for anyone owed money by an individual debtor (including a director who has given a personal guarantee, or a sole proprietor) is new paragraph 160A of Part 19. This paragraph applies to every application for a bankruptcy order made by a creditor who is represented by counsel.

In summary, paragraph 160A requires the creditor’s counsel to, before each hearing of the bankruptcy application:

  • Ensure the papers filed in support of the application are in order; and
  • File a “Creditor’s Bankruptcy Application Checklist” in the new Form B48, at least 3 days before the hearing, if the creditor’s position is that a bankruptcy order should be made against the debtor at that hearing.

Form B48 itself is detailed. It requires the creditor’s solicitors to confirm, among other things: the details of the statutory demand and its service (where the application relies on non-compliance with a statutory demand under section 312(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018), that the bankruptcy application was filed within the 4-month window, that the supporting affidavit contains the information required under sections 310 to 311 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, whether a private trustee in bankruptcy is proposed and has consented, and whether the debtor is eligible for, or has been assessed as unsuitable for, the Debt Repayment Scheme.

The paragraph also sets out a formal notification regime for adjournments and withdrawals: if a creditor wants to adjourn or withdraw a bankruptcy application, its counsel must inform the Court at least 3 days before the hearing, and if the debtor has not consented, the Court is told that too, so it can weigh the merits rather than simply rubber-stamping the request. Non-compliance with any of this can be taken into account by the Court in making its orders.

Why this matters even if you are not the bankrupt individual

Many Singapore private companies rely on personal guarantees from directors or third parties as security for loans, credit facilities, or leases. If your company, as a creditor, ever needs to enforce a personal guarantee through bankruptcy proceedings against an individual guarantor who will not pay, your lawyers now need to build a Form B48-ready file from the outset: proper statutory demand records, clean proof of service, and a supporting affidavit that ties out to sections 310 and 311 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018. Missing paperwork that might once have been patched up informally at the hearing is now flagged upfront on a standard checklist that the Court can see is late, incomplete, or simply not filed.

Conversely, if your company is defending a related winding up application, or your company’s director is the debtor being chased personally, the same discipline works in your favour: a creditor’s application that does not tie out on Form B48 is more exposed to challenge or delay.

What this does not change

It is worth being precise about scope. Paragraph 160A applies specifically to bankruptcy applications against individual debtors under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 and the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Personal Insolvency) Rules 2020. It does not, on its own text, create an equivalent checklist for company winding up petitions under Part 19’s other paragraphs (paragraph 161, on judicial management and winding up applications, and paragraph 162, on trial bundles for contested winding up hearings, are unaffected by this particular amendment). If your company is facing a winding up petition rather than a personal bankruptcy application against a director, the existing procedure we described in our article on winding up a Singapore company by the court still applies, unchanged by this amendment.

Equally, the amendment to paragraph 72 only affects contested applications for asset-freezing injunctions and search orders. It does not change the underlying test the Court applies for granting a Mareva injunction, nor does it touch ordinary interim injunctions unrelated to asset disposal, which may still be heard by a Registrar.

What company directors should do now

  1. If your company is likely to seek an asset-freezing injunction against a counterparty, brief your lawyers early so the supporting affidavit is built to the standard paragraph 73 already requires, on the assumption a Judge (not a Registrar) will hear a contested application.
  2. If your company holds a personal guarantee and may need to enforce it against an individual guarantor through bankruptcy, keep your statutory demand, service, and debt records in good order from the outset. Form B48 essentially previews what the Court will ask your lawyers to confirm.
  3. If your company is on the receiving end of a bankruptcy application against one of its directors personally, or a related winding up application against the company itself, ask your lawyers whether the creditor’s paperwork actually complies with the new checklist requirements. Gaps can be a legitimate basis to challenge timing or ask the Court to scrutinise the application more closely.
  4. Keep your corporate secretary and your litigation solicitors talking to each other. Court applications involving a company (whether a winding up petition, a summons for documents, or an affidavit exhibiting a board resolution) usually need both a lawyer’s conduct of the litigation and a corporate secretary’s access to statutory registers and company records. We set out how this division of labour typically works in our guide to who does what on a company court application.

The Rules of Court 2021 themselves were not amended by this instrument; this is a Practice Directions amendment, meaning it changes the administrative and procedural requirements the Registry and the Courts apply, not the underlying rules of civil procedure. But for anyone running a business in Singapore, procedural discipline of this kind is exactly where cases are won or lost on timing, so it is worth knowing about even though it never makes the headlines.

Related reading

For more on the mechanics of company court applications, see our articles on setting aside a statutory demand in Singapore, wasted costs orders against lawyers, and preparing exhibits for a supporting affidavit. If your company’s exposure runs alongside a personal financial question for a director or guarantor, getting proper advice on personal financial planning alongside the corporate litigation is worth considering too.

Get in touch

To speak with the team at Raffles Corporate Services, you can email [email protected] or call, SMS, or WhatsApp +65 8501 7133. We are happy to assist with any queries.

The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services