LOW SIONG NGO v GOH MEI LOON
Outcome
Application allowed“I therefore allow the application and set aside the Amended Default Judgment in its entirety.”
Source: [2026] SGDC 326, District Court, decided 5 October 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Lewis Tan |
| Charges / claim | Restitution, Trusts, Equity, Civil Procedure |
| Outcome | Application allowed |
| Counsel | Covenant Chambers LLC, KennethWong LLC, LP Law Corporation, Chong Yi-Liang Andrew, Kenneth Wong, Lee Ee Yang, Lua Wei Liang Wilbur, Wu Qijun |
Source: [2026] SGDC 326, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Low Siong Ngo v Goh Mei Loon [2026] SGDC 326 was decided in the District Court by Deputy Registrar Lewis Tan on 5 October 2026 in District Court Suit No 302 of 2022 (Summons No 718 of 2026). The Plaintiff sued in February 2022 for restitution of sums exceeding $100,000 paid to or for the Defendant between 2009 and 2015, alleging unjust enrichment based on a mistaken belief in an exclusive relationship. Default judgment was entered in September 2022 and amended in 2023, and the Defendant applied to set it aside in April 2026. The issues were whether inordinate delay was fatal, whether unjust enrichment was available where other causes of action existed, and whether limitation or laches applied to the trust claim. The Deputy Registrar allowed the application and set aside the Amended Default Judgment in its entirety, with costs to be heard later.
[2026] SGDC 326 explained
LOW SIONG NGO v GOH MEI LOON ([2026] SGDC 326) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 5 October 2026. It is categorised under Restitution, Trusts, Equity, and Civil Procedure. 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 326 about?
LOW SIONG NGO v GOH MEI LOON ([2026] SGDC 326) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Restitution — Unjust enrichment — Whether limitation period or laches applicable”, “Trusts — Constructive trusts — Nature of constructive trust – Whether “Class 1” or “Class 2” constructive trust”, “Equity — Defences — Laches — Whether defence of laches applies to plaintiff’s claim for trust property or proceeds”, and “Civil Procedure — Delay — Setting aside — Whether inordinate delay fatal to application to set aside default judgment”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 326 consider?
The judgment refers to Limitation Act (Cap 163). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGDC 326 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 185. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The District Court heard an application by Goh Mei Loon to set aside an amended default judgment obtained by Low Siong Ngo, who sought restitution of more than $100,000 paid to her between 2009 and 2015 under an alleged mistaken belief that they were in an exclusive relationship. The Defendant applied in April 2026, after almost four years of delay. The Deputy Registrar found the delay inordinate but allowed the application, holding that doubts over unjust enrichment and substantial limitation and laches defences against the trust claim outweighed it, and set aside the judgment in its entirety.
What was Low Siong Ngo v Goh Mei Loon [2026] SGDC 326 about?
The Defendant applied to set aside an amended default judgment in the Plaintiff's claim to recover more than $100,000 paid between 2009 and 2015 under an alleged mistaken belief in an exclusive relationship, framed in unjust enrichment and constructive trust.
Was the default judgment set aside in [2026] SGDC 326?
Yes. Despite inordinate delay and prejudice to the Plaintiff, the Deputy Registrar held that doubts over unjust enrichment and substantial limitation and laches defences to the trust claim outweighed these, and set aside the Amended Default Judgment in its entirety.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (18)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 326)