JTC Corporation v Hot Spring Stone Pte. Ltd.

Hot Spring Stone Pte Ltd leased non-residential premises from JTC Corporation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Part 2A of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (CTMA) gave rental relief to businesses. Because the CTMA adopts the Property Tax Act's definition of owner, which covers the person liable for property tax, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore treated Hot Spring as the owner and paid it a cash grant of $123,360 under s 19D(1) on 11 August 2020. JTC received no nominal notice as owner.

JTC sued for rental arrears in Suit No 1015 of 2021 and applied for summary judgment. Hot Spring counterclaimed that, as a tenant, it was also entitled under ss 19H and 19J of the CTMA to a two-month rental waiver from JTC worth $95,467.62. The Assistant Registrar granted summary judgment but deducted that sum, finding that the ordinary words of the provisions allowed both forms of relief, though this gave Hot Spring a windfall. JTC appealed in Registrar's Appeal No 331 of 2022, and the Attorney-General intervened on the interpretation of the provisions.

1. Whether a deemed owner who receives a cash grant under s 19D(1) of the CTMA can also be a tenant entitled to a rental waiver under ss 19H and 19J
2. Whether the Budget Statement of 26 May 2020 and the Minister's speech could be used to identify the purpose of Part 2A of the CTMA
3. Whether Hot Spring raised any triable issue that made summary judgment inappropriate

The court applied the three-step purposive framework in Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850 under s 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965. On text and context, the definition of PTO chain says where the chain ends but not where it starts, so the wording alone did not settle whether an owner could also be a tenant. Two features of Part 2A pointed one way, however. Section 19D(1) grants cash under the terms of the public scheme in the Budget Statement, which states that rental waivers do not apply to tenants who pay property tax, as those tenants receive the cash grant instead. The court rejected Hot Spring's argument that the Budget Statement was irrelevant because it predated the amending Act; the CTMA expressly incorporates it. The notice provisions in s 19F also send notice of a cash grant only downstream to tenants and sub-tenants, never up to an owner's own landlord, showing relief starts with the owner and flows down.

On purpose, the Minister for Law's speech explained that because the owner has already received the money, everyone else does not have to pay rent. This confirmed that Parliament meant each eligible entity to receive only one form of relief, passed down the chain. Only the reading that excludes an owner who has had the cash grant from also claiming a waiver furthers that purpose. As this purely legal question was resolved and no other triable issue was raised, summary judgment for the full sum was appropriate.

The High Court allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment to JTC for the full sum claimed in prayer 1(b) of HC/SUM 762/2022, without any reduction for Hot Spring's rental relief counterclaim.