KAY LIM CONSTRUCTION & TRADING PTE LTD v HURDA TRADING PTE LTD
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Evans Ng |
| Charges / claim | Tort, Damages |
| Counsel | Apex Law LLC, Tan Chin Hoe & Co, Chidambaram Selvaraj, Cynthiya C Charles Christy, Tan Seng Chew Richard |
Source: [2026] SGDC 327, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Kay Lim Construction & Trading Pte Ltd v Hurda Trading Pte Ltd [2026] SGDC 327 was decided by District Judge Evans Ng in the District Court, with judgment given on 5 October 2026 in District Court Originating Claim No 1604 of 2025. The claimant's employee, Pradeep, sold aluminium formwork from its store at 21 Senoko South Road to the defendant as scrap between 23 March and 4 May 2025; the defendant bought 18,096 kg for $39,811.20. The issues, under the catchwords Tort (Conversion) and Damages (Assessment), were whether the defendant could avoid the nemo dat rule and how to value the goods. The court found conversion, rejected actual authority, apparent authority and mercantile agent arguments, assessed damages at $39,811.20 and dismissed the unlawful means conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims.
[2026] SGDC 327 explained
KAY LIM CONSTRUCTION & TRADING PTE LTD v HURDA TRADING PTE LTD ([2026] SGDC 327) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 5 October 2026. It is categorised under Tort 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] SGDC 327 about?
KAY LIM CONSTRUCTION & TRADING PTE LTD v HURDA TRADING PTE LTD ([2026] SGDC 327) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Conversion” and “Damages — Assessment”, 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 327 consider?
The judgment refers to Factors Act and Sale of Goods Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The District Court heard a claim by Kay Lim Construction & Trading Pte Ltd against Hurda Trading Pte Ltd in conversion over aluminium formwork that an employee, Pradeep, sold to the defendant as scrap without authority. The court held the defendant acquired no better title than Pradeep and rejected its arguments of actual authority, apparent authority and mercantile agency. It assessed damages at $39,811.20 (18,096 kg at $2.20 per kg) and dismissed the conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims, with interest and costs left to be heard.
What was Kay Lim Construction & Trading v Hurda Trading about ([2026] SGDC 327)?
The claimant sued the defendant in conversion after its employee, Pradeep, sold aluminium formwork from the claimant's store to the defendant as scrap without authority. The defendant bought 18,096 kg for $39,811.20 between 23 March and 4 May 2025.
What damages did the court award in [2026] SGDC 327?
The District Court assessed damages in conversion at $39,811.20, being 18,096 kg multiplied by $2.20 per kg. It rejected the claimant's figure of $92,851.20, which was based on the 2017 price of $160 per sqm for new formwork.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (9)
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 327)