Keeping a Company Court Case Confidential in Singapore: Sealing Orders, Hearings in Private and Redacting Documents

Short answer: Singapore court cases are open to the public by default, so a company wanting to keep pricing, trade secrets or customer data off the public file must apply for a sealing order, redaction order or private hearing. A confidentiality clause is not enough: the company must show a real risk of harm.

Many directors only discover that court files can be inspected after their company has sued or been sued. The sealing order Singapore courts grant under their inherent powers is the main tool for keeping sensitive documents away from the public, alongside hearings in private, redacted affidavits and anonymised judgments. This guide explains the open justice principle, the legal basis for each order, what the court needs to see, how to apply, who can inspect a court file, how arbitration compares, and what the company secretary prepares while the solicitor runs the application.

Raffles Corporate Services works with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice. This article is general information only and is not legal advice.

What are sealing orders, hearings in private and redaction orders?

They are three different exceptions to open justice: a sealing order closes all or part of the court file to the public, a hearing in private (in camera) closes the courtroom, and a redaction order lets a party file a version of a document with sensitive passages blacked out for public inspection.

Open justice means hearings are public and court files can be inspected, so justice is seen to be done. In Anurag Avula v MatchMove Pay Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 123 (unreported), decided on 10 June 2026, the High Court said sealing orders should be the exception and not the norm.

A hearing in chambers is not the same thing. Interlocutory matters are usually heard in a judge’s or registrar’s chambers, which the public cannot attend, but that does not seal the documents filed.

What is the legal basis for keeping a court case confidential?

There is no single rule. The power to sit in private is in statute; the power to seal a file comes from the court’s inherent powers; and arbitration-related cases have their own statutory regime.

The State Courts also hear some cases in camera on the same kinds of grounds, according to the Singapore Courts’ guide to attending court; your solicitor will confirm the provision for a District Court or Magistrate’s Court claim. A sealing order deals with the court file; stopping a former employee from disclosing your information needs an injunction, covered in our guide to gagging orders and confidentiality injunctions.

When will the court grant a sealing order in Singapore?

Only when the company shows that the information is confidential and that open disclosure carries a real risk of personal or commercial harm, or would otherwise prejudice the administration of justice. Even then, the order must be as narrow as possible.

• Confidentiality alone is not enough. In Avula the defendant relied on a shareholders’ agreement confidentiality clause and email disclaimers. The court held that a private obligation of confidentiality is generally insufficient; the applicant must also show a real risk of harm (at [26] to [29]).
• Commercial sensitivity can justify an order. In Hi-P International Ltd v Tan Chai Hau [2020] SGHC 128 (unreported), the court sealed an annex listing the claimant’s customers, agents and suppliers because disclosure could let them bypass the company. In Re Zipmex Co Ltd [2023] 4 SLR 1100, an affidavit was sealed because disclosure risked derailing a restructuring.
• Public information gets no protection. In Avula, a share forfeiture already lodged with ACRA and figures in audited accounts were not protected, but a shareholder update with revenue analysis by client segment and cash flow forecasts was.
• Reputation is not a reason. A party’s interest in not being seen in an adverse light does not justify privacy orders (Deutsche Telekom at [45]).
• Narrow is better. Avula refused to seal the whole file; it sealed one affidavit and ordered a redacted version for public inspection.

The harm must be proved on affidavit, not left to counsel’s submissions (Avula at [34]). For when information has the necessary quality of confidence, see our guide to breach of confidence.

Is arbitration more confidential than a court case?

Usually yes. Arbitration is private, and Singapore law treats it as confidential, while court proceedings are open unless an order is made. But confidentiality in arbitration can be lost once the material enters an open court file.

Singapore arbitrations are “not only private but also confidential” (AAY v AAZ [2011] 1 SLR 1093 at [56], cited in BBW v BBX). When an arbitration reaches court, for example to set aside or enforce an award, the hearing is private by default.

The protection is not absolute. In Deutsche Telekom, privacy orders were refused because the awards and parties’ identities were already public. In Karan Chandur Tilani v Maarten Hein Bernard Koedijk [2024] SGCA 46 (unreported), the Court of Appeal refused to seal an appeal file because the appellant had exhibited the full award in a separate, unsealed statutory demand case. If you are still choosing between the two forums, see our comparison of arbitration vs litigation in Singapore.

How does a company apply for a sealing or redaction order?

By a formal application, prepared and filed by the company’s solicitor and supported by an affidavit, ideally before or at the same time as the sensitive material is filed. Court proceedings are conducted by a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.

1. Identify the sensitive material early: pricing, margins, customer lists, source code, unpublished forecasts, personal data or arbitration documents.
2. Ask whether it needs to be filed at all; a document can sometimes be described in general terms or only the relevant page exhibited.
3. Choose the narrowest order that works: a redacted exhibit, one sealed affidavit, or, rarely, the whole file.
4. Prepare an affidavit from a director or officer explaining what each category of information is, why it is not public, and what harm disclosure would cause.
5. Your solicitor files the summons and affidavit, if needed asking for interim sealing pending the hearing; in BBW v BBX the application was made without notice to the other side.
6. If the order is granted, file the redacted versions within the time set; in Avula, within a week.
7. Seek consequential orders for later submissions, affidavits and appeal bundles that refer to the sealed material. That burden falls on the party seeking confidentiality (Avula at [21]).

Shareholder disputes often put accounts and board papers into exhibits; see our guide to the section 216 oppression remedy.

Who can inspect a court file, and what does a sealing order stop?

Parties to the case can access the electronic case file. Anyone else must ask the court for permission, and a sealed document will not be released to them.

Under paragraph 17 of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, a non-party files a Request naming the person who will inspect, its interest in the matter and the reason. Copies may only be used for the purposes stated, though an approved non-party may keep a soft copy of any document available for inspection.

The bar is low. The Court of Appeal in Tilani cited Tan Chi Min v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2013] 4 SLR 529 on the low threshold for inspection, and Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani [2022] 3 SLR 1211 at [95]: once a document is part of the court record, its information enters the public domain. A cause book search, which anyone can run without permission, can reveal a case and prompt an inspection request.

A sealing order does not automatically anonymise the published judgment. Ask for parties to be referred to by letters, as in BBW v BBX, or for passages to be redacted; in Deutsche Telekom the applicant also asked that the parties not be named in hearing lists.

What documents are needed, how long does it take and what does it cost?

The application rests on evidence of what the information is and why disclosure would harm the company. Timing depends on the court, but applications in recent cases were decided within weeks.

Assumptions: examples, not benchmarks. The figures are costs paid to the other side, not the applicant’s own solicitors’ fees, which we do not quote; ask your solicitor for a written estimate. See also our guide to affidavits for a Singapore company.

What does the company secretary prepare, and what does the solicitor file?

The company secretary or corporate service provider (CSP) assembles records, authorisations and evidence of what is already public; the Singapore Advocate and Solicitor advises on the order, drafts and files the application and argues it in court.

Raffles Corporate Services does not give legal advice or act in court; a law firm from our panel handles any application (see the CSP and counsel handoff). A sealing order is not lodged with ACRA, but record internally which documents are sealed. If confidentiality is a concern in a dispute you are facing, speak to a lawyer before anything is filed.

What are the common mistakes?

Most failed applications rely on a confidentiality label, ask for too much, or come too late.

• Relying only on a confidentiality clause or email disclaimer, without evidence of real commercial harm.
• Asking to seal the whole case file when one exhibit or a few paragraphs are the problem.
• Leaving the evidence of commercial sensitivity to submissions instead of putting it in the affidavit.
• Filing sensitive documents first and applying later. In Tilani, an oral request at the hearing was refused because no formal application had been made, and the delay counted against the applicant.
• Exhibiting confidential material in a second, related case (for example a statutory demand or winding up application) without sealing it there too.
• Claiming confidentiality over information already in ACRA filings, audited accounts or the press.
• Forgetting later submissions and appeal bundles that quote the sealed affidavit.

Frequently asked questions

Can we keep our whole lawsuit secret?

Rarely. Open justice is the norm, and courts prefer the narrowest order that works, such as sealing one affidavit and filing a redacted copy. Sealing a whole file needs strong reasons, such as protecting the confidentiality of a related arbitration.

Is a confidentiality clause in our contract enough to get a sealing order?

No. The High Court has held that a private obligation of confidentiality is generally insufficient on its own. The company must also show a real risk of commercial or personal harm, or prejudice to the administration of justice, if the material stays open.

Can a rival business or journalist read our court documents?

They can ask. A non-party files a Request stating its interest and reason, and the court decides. Sealed documents are not available, and anyone may attend an open court hearing.

Can our company secretary apply for the sealing order?

No. The application is prepared, filed and argued by a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor. The company secretary prepares the board resolution, company records and the list of what is already public.

Last reviewed: 8 November 2026. The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services.