LAM, KIN HING KENNETH v YUNG, MAN TUNG
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 20–26 July 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Mohamed Faizal |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Trusts, Restitution |
| Counsel | Eldan Law LLP, Vaybhav Kumar Sharma s/o Thakor Prasad Sharma, Wong Siew Hong |
Source: [2026] SGHC 153, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (3)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Lam Kin Hing Kenneth v Yung Man Tung [2026] SGHC 153 was decided by Mohamed Faizal J in the General Division of the High Court on 21 July 2026. The claimant paid the defendant sums under a written agreement signed on 8 June 2018 concerning two properties at Miltonia Close, 15MC and 17MC, and obtained title to 17MC but not 15MC. The issues were whether the agreement was for the sale of the properties or only of options to purchase, the measure of damages, and alternative claims in a Quistclose trust and unjust enrichment. The court found the agreement was for the sale of the properties and awarded expectation damages of S$3,300,875, being S$2,796,875 for 15MC plus S$504,000 in stamp duties. The Quistclose trust and unjust enrichment claims failed, and the counterclaim was dismissed.
[2026] SGHC 153 explained
LAM, KIN HING KENNETH v YUNG, MAN TUNG ([2026] SGHC 153) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 21 July 2026. It is categorised under Contract, Trusts, 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] SGHC 153 about?
LAM, KIN HING KENNETH v YUNG, MAN TUNG ([2026] SGHC 153) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Breach”, “Trusts — Quistclose trusts”, “Contract — Contractual terms”, and “Contract — Remedies — Damages”, 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 153 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 144, [2024] SGHC 46, and [2023] SGCA 39, and 2 more. 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 dispute between a Hong Kong businessman and a long-standing friend over a written agreement of 8 June 2018 concerning two Miltonia Close properties, 15MC and 17MC. The court held the agreement was for the sale of the properties themselves, not merely the options to purchase, and that the defendant breached it by failing to procure title to 15MC. It awarded expectation damages of S$3,300,875, rejected claims in a Quistclose trust and unjust enrichment, and dismissed the counterclaim.
What damages were awarded in Lam Kin Hing Kenneth v Yung Man Tung [2026] SGHC 153?
The court awarded the claimant S$3,300,875 as expectation damages for breach of the agreement, comprising S$2,796,875 as the value of 15MC and S$504,000 in stamp duties. It declined to award the defendant's S$1,163,125 mark-up.
Why did the Quistclose trust claim fail in [2026] SGHC 153?
The agreement was a simple sale and purchase of properties. Money paid for a purpose does not alone create a Quistclose trust, and the seller had free disposal of the payments and was entitled to retain profit.
Cases Cited (37)
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 153)