JTC CORPORATION v HOT SPRING STONE PTE. LTD.

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 36 consider?

The judgment refers to COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, Interpretation Act (Cap 1), Property Tax Act (Cap 254), and Property Tax Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 36 High Court (General Division) 16 February 2023 HC/S 1015/2021 ( HC/RA 331/2022 ) 18 min read

1 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Appeal allowed

I allow the appeal.

Source: [2023] SGHC 36, High Court (General Division), decided 16 February 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	16 February 2023
Judge	Kwek Mean Luck
Charges / claim	Statutory Interpretation
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Malkin & Maxwell LLP, TSMP Law Corporation, Ailene Chou, Chong Yun Ling, Gabriel Teh, Ng Yuen, Punya Charan, Tan May Lian Felicia, Uma Jitendra Sharma

Source: [2023] SGHC 36, High Court (General Division), decided 16 February 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Statutory Interpretation — Interpretation Act — Purposive approach Statutory Interpretation — Construction of statute — Purposive approach

Practice Areas

Statutory Interpretation

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (10)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Malkin & Maxwell LLP Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm Ailene Chou Counsel Intervener Chong Yun Ling Counsel Intervener Gabriel Teh Counsel Respondent Ng Yuen Counsel Respondent Punya Charan Counsel Appellant Tan May Lian Felicia Counsel Appellant Uma Jitendra Sharma Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

Attorney-General Intervener Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd Respondent JTC Corporation Appellant

Case Significance

JTC Corporation v Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd (Attorney-General, intervener) [2023] SGHC 36 is an ex tempore judgment of the General Division of the High Court in Suit No 1015 of 2021 (Registrar's Appeal No 331 of 2022), delivered by Kwek Mean Luck J on 16 February 2023 following a hearing on 15 February 2023. The case concerned rental relief under Part 2A of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (CTMA). Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd, which leased a non-residential property from JTC Corporation, had received a cash grant of $123,360 from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore under s 19D(1) of the CTMA as the 'owner' of the premises. The question was whether Hot Spring was also entitled to a further two months' rental waiver from JTC under ss 19H and/or 19J of the CTMA, amounting to $95,467.62, and the matter turned on the purposive interpretation of the statute.

[2023] SGHC 36 explained

JTC CORPORATION v HOT SPRING STONE PTE. LTD. ([2023] SGHC 36) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 16 February 2023. It is categorised under Statutory Interpretation. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 36 about?

JTC CORPORATION v HOT SPRING STONE PTE. LTD. ([2023] SGHC 36) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Statutory Interpretation — Interpretation Act — Purposive approach” and “Statutory Interpretation — Construction of statute — Purposive approach”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 36 consider?

The judgment refers to COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, Interpretation Act (Cap 1), Property Tax Act (Cap 254), and Property Tax Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 36?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 36 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

This appeal concerned rental relief under Part 2A of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020, where Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd, a lessee of non-residential premises from JTC Corporation, had received a cash grant as deemed "owner" and also claimed a further rental waiver from JTC as "tenant". The issue was whether an entity that received a cash grant as "owner" could also claim a rental waiver as "tenant" for the same property. Applying a purposive interpretation, the High Court held that an eligible entity was entitled to only one form of relief, allowed JTC's appeal and granted summary judgment for the full sum claimed.

What was the issue in JTC Corporation v Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd ([2023] SGHC 36)?

The [2023] SGHC 36 case asked whether Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd, having received a $123,360 cash grant from IRAS under s 19D(1) of the CTMA, was also entitled to a further two months' rental waiver of $95,467.62 from JTC Corporation.

What rental relief did Hot Spring Stone receive under the CTMA ([2023] SGHC 36)?

Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd received a cash grant of $123,360 from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore under s 19D(1) of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020, as 'owner' of a non-residential property leased from JTC Corporation.