PRIME LODGE (2021) PTE. LTD. v UNITED LAUNDRY PTE. LTD.
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Jonathan Ng Pang Ern |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Restitution |
| Counsel | Amolat & Partners, Characterist LLC, Foxwood LLC, Amolat Singh, Helena Amolak, Lie Chin-Chin, Mitchell Leon Siu Kin, Ng Huiling Cheryl |
Source: [2026] SGDC 302, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Prime Lodge (2021) Pte Ltd v United Laundry Pte Ltd [2026] SGDC 302 was decided by District Judge Jonathan Ng Pang Ern in the District Court on 28 September 2026. Under a Service Agreement that took effect on 1 October 2021, the Defendant was to provide laundry services for the Claimant's dormitory for one year, with an option to extend for a second year. The Claimant sought $89,527.48 for total failure of consideration, alleging services stopped after 14 January 2022. The issues were whether laundry services and RFID tags were provided and whether the agreement was extended. The court found no total failure of consideration, held the agreement extended from 1 October 2022, dismissed the claim and gave judgment for the Defendant on its $55,742.47 counterclaim.
[2026] SGDC 302 explained
PRIME LODGE (2021) PTE. LTD. v UNITED LAUNDRY PTE. LTD. ([2026] SGDC 302) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 28 September 2026. It is categorised under Contract and Restitution. 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 302 about?
PRIME LODGE (2021) PTE. LTD. v UNITED LAUNDRY PTE. LTD. ([2026] SGDC 302) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Contractual terms” and “Restitution — Failure of consideration — Total failure of consideration”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
The District Court heard a claim by a dormitory operator, Prime Lodge (2021) Pte Ltd, for $89,527.48 paid to United Laundry Pte Ltd, alleging total failure of consideration because laundry services stopped from 15 January 2022. The court found the Defendant provided its laundry services until 27 January 2023, that there was no total failure of consideration, and that the Service Agreement was extended for a second year. It dismissed the claim and entered judgment for the Defendant on its counterclaim of $55,742.47.
What was Prime Lodge (2021) Pte Ltd v United Laundry Pte Ltd about ([2026] SGDC 302)?
The Claimant, a dormitory operator, sought $89,527.48 for total failure of consideration, alleging the Defendant stopped laundry services after 14 January 2022. The Defendant denied this and counterclaimed $55,742.47 for services provided in the second year.
How did the court decide the counterclaim in [2026] SGDC 302?
The court held the Service Agreement was extended for a second year from 1 October 2022, by the Claimant's conduct. It entered judgment for the Defendant on the counterclaim for $55,742.47, the undisputed total of unpaid invoices.
Cases Cited (2)
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 302)