ETHOZ CAPITAL LTD v GOKEN AESTHETICS PRACTICE PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 29 June–5 July 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Tan Siong Thye |
| Charges / claim | Contract |
| Counsel | Hin Tat Augustine & Partners, I.R.B. Law LLP, Lee Pei Yi Jamey, Pang Khin Wee, Sean Lim Thian Siong |
Source: [2026] SGHC 140, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (5)
Parties (5)
Case Significance
Ethoz Capital Ltd v Goken Aesthetics Practice Pte Ltd and others (Chen Qiao Ning, third party) [2026] SGHC 140 was decided by Tan Siong Thye SJ in the General Division of the High Court on 3 July 2026. The claimant sued for breach of a term loan facility of $600,000 granted to the first defendant, guaranteed by the second and third defendants. Default judgment was entered against the first and second defendants, so the trial proceeded only against the third defendant, Sin Yong (Shen Yong), who counterclaimed. The issues were whether Foong Chong Hung misrepresented that the third defendant would not be personally liable, and whether he signed the Deed of Guarantee consciously and voluntarily with knowledge of its liabilities. The court found no evidence of misrepresentation, allowed the claim under the Deed of Guarantee and dismissed the counterclaim.
[2026] SGHC 140 explained
ETHOZ CAPITAL LTD v GOKEN AESTHETICS PRACTICE PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors ([2026] SGHC 140) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 3 July 2026. It is categorised under Contract. 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] SGHC 140 about?
ETHOZ CAPITAL LTD v GOKEN AESTHETICS PRACTICE PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors ([2026] SGHC 140) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Mistake” and “Contract — Misrepresentation”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 140 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 279 and [2024] SGHC 145. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard a claim by Ethoz Capital Ltd for breach of a $600,000 term loan facility granted to Goken Aesthetics Practice Pte Ltd, against which the third defendant, Sin Yong (Shen Yong), stood as personal guarantor. He argued that he had been told he would not be personally liable and that he did not sign the guarantee knowingly. The court found no evidence of the alleged misrepresentation, held that his conduct showed he understood his liability, allowed the claim against him under the Deed of Guarantee and dismissed his counterclaim.
What was Ethoz Capital Ltd v Goken Aesthetics Practice Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 140 about?
It was a claim by Ethoz Capital Ltd for breach of a $600,000 term loan facility. The third defendant, a personal guarantor, alleged he was told he would not be personally liable and that the guarantee was signed under mistake or misrepresentation.
Did the court find the guarantor liable in [2026] SGHC 140?
Yes. The court found no evidence of the alleged misrepresentation, noting the third defendant asked to be replaced as guarantor two weeks after signing, which showed he understood his liability. It allowed the claim under the Deed of Guarantee and dismissed his counterclaim.
Cases Cited (15)
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] SGHC 140)