TUFFI (PTE.) LTD. v TECHKON PTE LTD & Anor

[2026] SGHC(A) 25 High Court (Appellate Division) 8 October 2026 AD/CA 108/2025 41 min read

10 cases cited (9 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Appeal allowed

“…we allow the appeal in respect of Tuffi’s claim against Techkon, and dismiss the appeal in respect of Tuffi’s claim against TDSPL.”

Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 25, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 8 October 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Featured in the weekly digest — week of 5–11 October 2026 →

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	8 October 2026
Judges	Debbie Ong Siew Ling, See Kee Oon, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Equity, Contract
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, Chen Jinwen, Foo & Quek LLC, NLC Law Asia LLC, Withers KhattarWong LLP, Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam, Joel Tan Yuan Hong, Ng Lip Chih, Prabu Devaraj s/o Raman, Rajan Sanjiv Kumar, Sydney Koh, Tan Jinwen, Mark, Tan Sheng An Jonathan

Source: [2026] SGHC(A) 25, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 8 October 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 14 October 2026.

Catchwords

Equity — Remedies — Rectification Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms — Whether implied term for adjusting sum payable exists Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation — Whether parties agreed on fixed sum or formula for payment Contract — Privity of contract — Whether joint venture company also party to agreement between principals

Practice Areas

Equity Contract

Judges (3)

Debbie Ong Siew Ling Coram See Kee Oon Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (13)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm

Chen Jinwen Firm

Foo & Quek LLC Firm NLC Law Asia LLC Firm Withers KhattarWong LLP Firm Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam Counsel for the appellant

Joel Tan Yuan Hong Counsel for the respondent

Ng Lip Chih Counsel for the respondent Prabu Devaraj s/o Raman Counsel for the respondent Rajan Sanjiv Kumar Counsel for the respondent

Sydney Koh Counsel for the respondent

Tan Jinwen, Mark Counsel for the respondent Tan Sheng An Jonathan Counsel for the appellant

Parties (3)

Techkon Development (Sembawang) Pte. Ltd. Respondent

Techkon Pte Ltd Respondent

Tuffi (Pte.) Ltd. Appellant

Case Significance

Tuffi (Pte) Ltd v Techkon Pte Ltd and another [2026] SGHC(A) 25 was decided by Woo Bih Li JAD, Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and See Kee Oon JAD in the Appellate Division of the High Court, with judgment delivered by See Kee Oon JAD on 8 October 2026 in Civil Appeal No 108 of 2025. Tuffi and Techkon agreed in 2019 to rebalance their investments in Techkon Development (Sembawang) Pte Ltd, and the 2019 Calculations produced a sum payable to Tuffi of $722,429.73. Preference share expenses had been double-counted, and the corrected sum would have been $1,256,962.89. The issues were interpretation, implied terms, rectification and privity. The court allowed the appeal against Techkon, ordering $534,533.16 with interest, and dismissed it against the joint venture company.

[2026] SGHC(A) 25 explained

TUFFI (PTE.) LTD. v TECHKON PTE LTD & Anor ([2026] SGHC(A) 25) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 8 October 2026. It is categorised under Equity and 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(A) 25 about?

TUFFI (PTE.) LTD. v TECHKON PTE LTD & Anor ([2026] SGHC(A) 25) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Equity — Remedies — Rectification”, “Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms — Whether implied term for adjusting sum payable exists”, “Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation — Whether parties agreed on fixed sum or formula for payment”, and “Contract — Privity of contract — Whether joint venture company also party to agreement between principals”, 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(A) 25 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 201. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

The Appellate Division of the High Court heard Tuffi (Pte) Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its claim against Techkon Pte Ltd and Techkon Development (Sembawang) Pte Ltd over a 2019 agreement to rebalance their investments. A calculation mistake had double-counted preference share expenses, so Tuffi was paid $722,429.73 rather than $1,256,962.89. The court held the agreement included the calculations, and that it would have implied a term allowing the sum to be adjusted for errors. It allowed the appeal against Techkon, ordering payment of $534,533.16 with interest, but dismissed it against the joint venture company.

What was Tuffi v Techkon [2026] SGHC(A) 25 about?

Tuffi claimed $534,533.16 from Techkon, arguing that a 2019 calculation double-counted preference share expenses and understated the sum payable to it. Techkon said the 2019 agreement was simply to pay a fixed final sum, which it had paid in full.

What did the Appellate Division decide in [2026] SGHC(A) 25?

The court allowed Tuffi's appeal against Techkon, which was to pay $534,533.16 with interest, because the agreement included the calculations and a term allowing adjustment for errors would have been implied. It dismissed the appeal against the joint venture company, which was not a party.