Purpose Automobiles Pte Ltd v Wong Li Yan, Virginia & Anor
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Sim Mei Ling |
| Charges / claim | Contract |
| Counsel | CNPLaw LLP, Kalco Law LLC, Lye Hoong Yip, Ramond, Tong Siu Hong, Joshua, Wong Changyan, Ernest, Yeo Wei Ern |
Source: [2025] SGDC 302, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
[2025] SGDC 302 is a District Court decision dated 17 November 2025 concerning Contract, specifically addressing remedies. The judgment was delivered by Sim Mei Ling. The case was brought by Purpose Automobiles Pte Ltd (plaintiff) against Lim Wei Meng and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Kalco Law LLC and CNPLaw LLP. The judgment cites 4 cases and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Evidence Act and the Sale of Goods Act.
[2025] SGDC 302 explained
Purpose Automobiles Pte Ltd v Wong Li Yan, Virginia & Anor ([2025] SGDC 302) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 17 November 2025. It is categorised under Contract. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 [2025] SGDC 302 about?
Purpose Automobiles Pte Ltd v Wong Li Yan, Virginia & Anor ([2025] SGDC 302) is a District Court decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Remedies — Damages — Causation and remoteness”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGDC 302 consider?
The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97) and Sale of Goods Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
A car dealer sued the former owner of a Lamborghini Urus for breach of a Vehicle Purchase Agreement after discovering the car's odometer had been tampered with — the actual mileage was 18,075 km rather than the stated 9,000 km, which voided the manufacturer's warranty and caused a prospective $965,000 sale to fall through. The key issue was the measure of damages for the mileage misrepresentation, with competing expert valuations. The District Court assessed damages at $20,000, accepting the expert evidence that the difference in value between a 9,000 km and 18,075 km Lamborghini Urus was modest.
What was decided in [2025] SGDC 302?
[2025] SGDC 302 (Purpose Automobiles Pte Ltd v Wong Li Yan, Virginia & Anor) is a District Court decision from 17 November 2025 addressing Contract, specifically remedies. The judgment was delivered by Sim Mei Ling.
Who were the parties in Purpose Automobiles Pte Ltd v Wong Li Yan, Virginia & Anor ([2025] SGDC 302)?
The plaintiff in [2025] SGDC 302 was Purpose Automobiles Pte Ltd, and the defendant was Lim Wei Meng, Wong Li Yan, Virginia. Legal representation included Kalco Law LLC and CNPLaw LLP. The case was decided on 17 November 2025 in the District Court.
Which judge decided [2025] SGDC 302?
[2025] SGDC 302 was delivered by Sim Mei Ling in the District Court on 17 November 2025. The case concerned Contract.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGDC 302 cite?
[2025] SGDC 302 cites 4 prior decisions. It references Evidence Act, Sale of Goods Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (4)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGDC 302)