Sunlight Paper Products Pte Ltd v Decorial Pte Ltd
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Teo Guan Kee |
| Charges / claim | Contract |
| Counsel | CSP Legal LLC, Phoenix Law Corporation, Derek Wong Kim Siong, Tan Heng Thye, Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram |
Source: [2026] SGDC 65, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
[2026] SGDC 65 is a District Court decision dated 16 February 2026 concerning Contract, specifically addressing remedies. The judgment was delivered by Teo Guan Kee. The case was brought by Sunlight Paper Products Pte. Ltd. (plaintiff) against Decorial Pte. Ltd. (defendant). Legal representation was provided by CSP Legal LLC and Phoenix Law Corporation. The judgment cites 4 cases.
[2026] SGDC 65 explained
Sunlight Paper Products Pte Ltd v Decorial Pte Ltd ([2026] SGDC 65) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 16 February 2026. 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 [2026] SGDC 65 about?
Sunlight Paper Products Pte Ltd v Decorial Pte Ltd ([2026] SGDC 65) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract – Remedies – Deposit Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Recovery of deposit on grounds of unjust enrichment Tort – Misrepresentation – Fraud and deceit”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
A tissue products company sued an awning contractor to recover a $36,554 deposit after the contractor failed to deliver a retractable awning system that would comply with a 25-metre height restriction for the building. The court dismissed the deposit recovery claim, finding the claimant had repudiated the contract by wrongfully refusing to allow installation, but awarded only nominal damages of $100 on the contractor's counterclaim for lost profits due to insufficient evidence of costs.
What was decided in [2026] SGDC 65?
[2026] SGDC 65 (Sunlight Paper Products Pte Ltd v Decorial Pte Ltd) is a District Court decision from 16 February 2026 addressing Contract, specifically remedies. The judgment was delivered by Teo Guan Kee.
Who were the parties in Sunlight Paper Products Pte Ltd v Decorial Pte Ltd ([2026] SGDC 65)?
The plaintiff in [2026] SGDC 65 was Sunlight Paper Products Pte. Ltd., and the defendant was Decorial Pte. Ltd.. Legal representation included Phoenix Law Corporation and CSP Legal LLC. The case was decided on 16 February 2026 in the District Court.
Which judge decided [2026] SGDC 65?
[2026] SGDC 65 was delivered by Teo Guan Kee in the District Court on 16 February 2026. The case concerned Contract.
What cases and statutes does [2026] SGDC 65 cite?
[2026] SGDC 65 cites 4 prior decisions.
Cases Cited (4)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 65)