JGY v JHH
Key facts
| Court | Small Claims Tribunals |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Jared Kang Chern Wey |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Damages |
Source: [2026] SGSCT 27, Small Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
JGY v JHH [2026] SGSCT 27 was decided by Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey in the Small Claims Tribunals (Claim No 17097 of 2026) on 12 October 2026, after hearings on 24 September 2026. JGY, which operates tuition centres, claimed $13,200 from JHH, who taught Chinese for it under a teaching consultancy agreement signed on 7 August 2024. JGY alleged that JHH solicited a student to take private lessons, contrary to the non-solicitation restriction in cl 8(4). The claim included $7,920 in tuition fees, $3,600 under termination provisions and $316 in advertising costs. The issues were breach of contract, proof of actual damage and restraint of trade. The Tribunal held that breach of cl 8(4) was not proved, dismissed the claim in full and made no order as to costs.
[2026] SGSCT 27 explained
JGY v JHH ([2026] SGSCT 27) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGSCT on 12 October 2026. It is categorised under Contract and Damages. 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 27 about?
JGY v JHH ([2026] SGSCT 27) is a SGSCT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Breach”, “Damages — Rules in awarding — Proof of actual damage”, and “Contract — Illegality and public policy — Restraint of trade”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
The Small Claims Tribunals heard a claim by JGY, which operates tuition centres in Singapore, seeking $13,200 from JHH, a teaching consultant, for allegedly soliciting one of its students to take private lessons in breach of cl 8(4) of their agreement. JHH accepted teaching the student privately but denied soliciting her. The Tribunal found that JGY had not proved that JHH requested or encouraged the student or her mother to engage her privately, and dismissed the claim in full with no order as to costs.
What was JGY v JHH [2026] SGSCT 27 about?
JGY, a tuition centre operator, claimed $13,200 from JHH, a teaching consultant, alleging she solicited one of its students for private lessons in breach of cl 8(4) of their agreement. JHH accepted teaching the student privately but denied soliciting her.
What did the Small Claims Tribunals decide in [2026] SGSCT 27?
Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey held that JGY had not proved that JHH requested or encouraged the student or her mother to engage her privately. The claim was dismissed in full, with no order as to costs or disbursements.
Cases Cited (3)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGSCT 27)