Sunlight Paper Products Pte Ltd v Decorial Pte Ltd

Sunlight Paper Products Pte Ltd v Decorial Pte Ltd

Claim dismissed because claimant repudiated the contract and was not entitled to recover deposit on breach; deposit, though contractually non-refundable, was not 'reasonable as an earnest' and right to forfeiture was unenforceable but unjust enrichment failed because there was not a total failure of consideration (defendant produced drawings); fraudulent misrepresentation not proven; defendant's counterclaim allowed only nominal damages of $100 due to lack of substantiation of claimed costs and profits.

Citation
[2026] SGDC 65
Parties
Claimant: Sunlight Paper Products Pte. Ltd.; Defendant: Decorial Pte. Ltd.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
16 February 2026
Case Number
DC/OC 1208/2023
Procedural Posture
District Court Originating Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed in nominal sum.
Legal Topics
Deposit Forfeiture, Unjust Enrichment, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Damages, Nominal Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Restitution Tort Deposit Forfeiture Unjust Enrichment Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunlight Paper Products Pte. Ltd.

Claimant

Decorial Pte. Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

District Court Originating Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant entitled to return of deposit
  2. 2 Whether defendant breached contract or implied term to provide acceptable drawings
  3. 3 Whether deposit was reasonable as an earnest and thus forfeitable

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because claimant repudiated the contract and was not entitled to recover deposit on breach; deposit, though contractually non-refundable, was not 'reasonable as an earnest' and right to forfeiture was unenforceable but unjust enrichment failed because there was not a total failure of consideration (defendant produced drawings); fraudulent misrepresentation not proven; defendant's counterclaim allowed only nominal damages of $100 due to lack of substantiation of claimed costs and profits.

Court Disposition

Claimant's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed in nominal sum.

Orders

  • Claimant's claim dismissed in its entirety.
  • Defendant's counterclaim allowed; Claimant to pay $100 to Defendant.