PS 23 Interior Pte. Ltd. v Andrew Tan Tong Sin

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGMC 71 consider?

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

[2026] SGMC 71 Magistrate Court 12 June 2026 • MC/OC 3730/2025 • 78 min read

1 cases cited

Outcome

Claim dismissed

I therefore dismiss the claim for $2,950 premised on item 1 of the 19 April VO.

Source: [2026] SGMC 71, Magistrate Court, decided 12 June 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	Magistrate Court
Decided	12 June 2026
Judge	Tay Jingxi
Charges / claim	Contract, Tort, Building and Construction Law
Outcome	Claim dismissed
Sentence / award	$2,950
Counsel	BT Law Chambers, Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC, Chia Boon Teck, Leong Wen Wei, Michael

Source: [2026] SGMC 71, Magistrate Court, decided 12 June 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contract – Breach Tort – Negligence Contract – Variation Contract – Contractual terms Building and Construction Law – Building and construction contracts – Renovation contracts and contracts for minor works

Practice Areas

Contract Tort Building and Construction Law

Judges (1)

Tay Jingxi Delivered

Counsel (4)

BT Law Chambers Firm Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC Firm Chia Boon Teck Counsel Defendant Leong Wen Wei, Michael Counsel Claimant

Parties (2)

PS 23 Interior Pte. Ltd. Claimant Andrew Tan Tong Sin Defendant

Case Significance

PS 23 Interior Pte Ltd v Andrew Tan Tong Sin [2026] SGMC 71 is a State Courts (Magistrate's Court) decision delivered by District Judge Tay Jingxi on 12 June 2026, following hearings on 27 March and 15 May 2026, in Magistrate Court Originating Claim No 3730 of 2025. The claimant, a renovation and interior design company, sued its former client, Andrew Tan Tong Sin, for unpaid invoices arising from a renovation contract for the defendant's landed property at Old Upper Thomson Road, based on a quotation dated 23 September 2021 that was varied at least three times, with the parties disputing which of two competing documents recorded the agreed variations. The judgment cites one Singapore authority and the Evidence Act.

[2026] SGMC 71 explained

PS 23 Interior Pte. Ltd. v Andrew Tan Tong Sin ([2026] SGMC 71) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Magistrate Court on 12 June 2026. It is categorised under Contract, Tort, and Building and Construction Law. 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 71 about?

PS 23 Interior Pte. Ltd. v Andrew Tan Tong Sin ([2026] SGMC 71) is a Magistrate Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract – Breach”, “Tort – Negligence”, “Contract – Variation”, and “Contract – Contractual terms”, 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 71 consider?

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

What was the original contract date in the PS 23 Interior renovation dispute at Old Upper Thomson Road ([2026] SGMC 71)?

In PS 23 Interior Pte Ltd v Andrew Tan Tong Sin [2026] SGMC 71, the renovation and design works were governed by a quotation dated 23 September 2021, which the parties subsequently varied at least three times, prompting a dispute over unpaid invoices.