JTC CORPORATION v HOT SPRING STONE PTE. LTD.

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

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 for the intervener

Chong Yun Ling Counsel for the intervener

Gabriel Teh Counsel for the respondent

Ng Yuen Counsel for the respondent

Punya Charan Counsel for the appellant

Tan May Lian Felicia Counsel for the appellant

Uma Jitendra Sharma Counsel for the 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.

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.