JFM v JKW
Outcome
Claim allowed“I allow the claim in respect of the $3,000 transaction.”
Source: [2026] SGSCT 25, Small Claims Tribunals, decided 17 September 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | Small Claims Tribunals |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Jared Kang Chern Wey |
| Charges / claim | Commercial Transactions |
| Outcome | Claim allowed |
| Sentence / award | $3,000 |
Source: [2026] SGSCT 25, Small Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
JFM v JKW [2026] SGSCT 25 was decided in the Small Claims Tribunals (Claim No 17339 of 2025) by Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey, with the judgment dated 19 November 2025. The claimant sued under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 to unwind two transactions, a $210 peeling gel and a $3,000 package of facials and products, totalling $3,210. The issues were whether the respondent engaged in an unfair practice in each transaction. The Tribunal found the $210 claim unproven for lack of concrete detail. On the $3,000 transaction, the respondent called no witness who was present, and the claimant's account was accepted. The Tribunal found undue pressure under para 14 of the Second Schedule and ordered a refund of $3,000 by 26 November 2025, with the products to be returned by 3 December 2025.
[2026] SGSCT 25 explained
JFM v JKW ([2026] SGSCT 25) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGSCT on 17 September 2026. It is categorised under Commercial Transactions. 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] SGSCT 25 about?
JFM v JKW ([2026] SGSCT 25) is a SGSCT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Commercial Transactions — Sale of services — Consumer protection”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
The Small Claims Tribunal heard a claim under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 by a consumer who sought to unwind two purchases from a facial and skincare provider, a $210 peeling gel and a $3,000 package, totalling $3,210. The Tribunal found no unfair practice proved for the $210 sale. For the $3,000 sale it found undue pressure under para 14 of the Second Schedule, ordered a refund of $3,000 and return of the products, and made no order as to costs.
What was JFM v JKW [2026] SGSCT 25 about?
A consumer claimed under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 that high-pressure sales tactics led him to buy a $210 peeling gel and a $3,000 package of facials and products, and sought to unwind both transactions.
What orders did the Small Claims Tribunal make in [2026] SGSCT 25?
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for the $210 purchase and allowed the claim for the $3,000 transaction. The respondent was to refund $3,000 by 26 November 2025, the claimant was to return the products by 3 December 2025, and each party bore its own costs.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGSCT 25)