HAMPTON PROPERTY GROUP v MARX AURNHAMMER WERNER JOHANNES

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGMC 5 consider?

The judgment refers to EA Act, Estate Agents Act, and Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGMC 5 Magistrate Court 13 January 2026 MC/OC 8613/2023 32 min read

3 cases cited

Outcome

Claim dismissed

I dismiss the claim entirely.

Source: [2026] SGMC 5, Magistrate Court, decided 13 January 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Magistrate Court
Decided	13 January 2026
Judge	Sim Mei Ling
Charges / claim	Statutory Interpretation, Contract
Outcome	Claim dismissed
Counsel	Kana & Co, Kanagavijayan Nadarajan

Source: [2026] SGMC 5, Magistrate Court, decided 13 January 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Statutory Interpretation — S 44 of the Estate Agents Act 2010 Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms — Whether an agent is the effective cause of a sale

Practice Areas

Statutory Interpretation Contract

Judges (1)

Sim Mei Ling Delivered

Counsel (2)

Kana & Co Firm Kanagavijayan Nadarajan Counsel Claimant

Parties (2)

Hampton Property Group Plaintiff Marx Aurnhammer Werner Johannes Defendant

Case Significance

[2026] SGMC 5 is a Magistrate Court decision dated 13 January 2026 concerning Contract and Statutory Interpretation, specifically addressing s 44 of the estate agents act 2010 and contractual terms. The judgment was delivered by Sim Mei Ling. The case was brought by Hampton Property Group (plaintiff) against Marx Aurnhammer Werner Johannes (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Kana & Co. The judgment cites 3 cases and references 3 statutory provisions, including the EA Act, the Estate Agents Act, and the Evidence Act.

[2026] SGMC 5 explained

HAMPTON PROPERTY GROUP v MARX AURNHAMMER WERNER JOHANNES ([2026] SGMC 5) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Magistrate Court on 13 January 2026. It is categorised under Statutory Interpretation and 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] SGMC 5 about?

HAMPTON PROPERTY GROUP v MARX AURNHAMMER WERNER JOHANNES ([2026] SGMC 5) is a Magistrate Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Statutory Interpretation — S 44 of the Estate Agents Act 2010” and “Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms — Whether an agent is the effective cause of a sale”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGMC 5 consider?

The judgment refers to EA Act, Estate Agents Act, and Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

Hampton Property Group sued Marx Aurnhammer Werner Johannes in a property-related dispute involving claims for breach of contract. The Magistrate's Court assessed the contractual obligations and determined the parties' respective rights and liabilities.

What was decided in [2026] SGMC 5?

[2026] SGMC 5 (HAMPTON PROPERTY GROUP v MARX AURNHAMMER WERNER JOHANNES) is a Magistrate Court decision from 13 January 2026 addressing Contract and Statutory Interpretation, specifically s 44 of the estate agents act 2010 and contractual terms. The judgment was delivered by Sim Mei Ling.

Who were the parties in HAMPTON PROPERTY GROUP v MARX AURNHAMMER WERNER JOHANNES ([2026] SGMC 5)?

The plaintiff in [2026] SGMC 5 was Hampton Property Group, and the defendant was Marx Aurnhammer Werner Johannes. Legal representation included Kana & Co. The case was decided on 13 January 2026 in the Magistrate Court.