NPS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL PTE. LTD. v RAFFLES ASSETS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.

[2026] SGHC 198 High Court (General Division) 14 October 2026 HC/OC 32/2024 70 min read

8 cases cited (7 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	14 October 2026
Judge	Andre Maniam
Charges / claim	Contract
Counsel	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, WongPartnership LLP, Foo Hsien Weng, Jill Ann Koh Ying (Xu Ying), Lin Weiqi Wendy, Phang Wei Sheng Nicholas, Thawdar Soe Moe @ The Sandi Tun, Tng Sheng Rong, Zhan Xiang Yun

Source: [2026] SGHC 198, High Court (General Division), decided 14 October 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 14 October 2026.

Catchwords

Contract — Breach Contract — Formation Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation

Practice Areas

Contract

Judges (1)

Andre Maniam Delivered

Counsel (9)

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Foo Hsien Weng Counsel for the defendant Jill Ann Koh Ying (Xu Ying) Counsel for the defendant Lin Weiqi Wendy Counsel for the defendant

Phang Wei Sheng Nicholas Counsel for the defendant

Thawdar Soe Moe @ The Sandi Tun Counsel for the plaintiff Tng Sheng Rong Counsel for the plaintiff

Zhan Xiang Yun Counsel for the defendant

Parties (2)

NPS International School Pte Ltd Plaintiff

Raffles Assets (Singapore) Pte Ltd Defendant

Case Significance

NPS International School Pte Ltd v Raffles Assets (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 198 was decided by Andre Maniam J in the General Division of the High Court, with grounds of decision dated 14 October 2026 in Originating Claim No 32 of 2024. The parties signed a letter of intent dated 29 July 2022 for an intended lease of 51 Merchant Road, and NPS paid a $500,000 initial deposit. NPS was to obtain regulatory approvals for a Foreign Systems School by 28 September 2022, but did not, and no tenancy agreement was concluded. The issues, under the catchwords Contract (Breach, Formation, Interpretation), were whether the letter of intent was binding and whether the deposit was returnable. On 20 May 2026 the court dismissed NPS's claim, declared paras 3, 11 and 23 binding, declared a breach of para 3 and ordered damages to be assessed; on 21 July 2026 it declared paras 5 and 10 binding.

[2026] SGHC 198 explained

NPS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL PTE. LTD. v RAFFLES ASSETS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. ([2026] SGHC 198) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 14 October 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 198 about?

NPS INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL PTE. LTD. v RAFFLES ASSETS (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. ([2026] SGHC 198) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Breach”, “Contract — Formation”, and “Contract — Contractual terms — Interpretation”, 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 198 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 27. 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 NPS International School Pte Ltd to recover a $500,000 initial deposit paid to Raffles Assets (Singapore) Pte Ltd under a letter of intent dated 29 July 2022 for a lease of 51 Merchant Road. The regulatory approvals required by 28 September 2022 were not obtained and no tenancy agreement was concluded. On 20 May 2026 the court dismissed the claim, declared the letter of intent binding in part and that NPS had breached para 3, and ordered damages to be assessed. On 21 July 2026 it declared paras 5 and 10 binding too.

What was NPS International School v Raffles Assets about ([2026] SGHC 198)?

NPS sued to recover a $500,000 initial deposit paid under a letter of intent for a lease of 51 Merchant Road, after regulatory approvals were not obtained by 28 September 2022. Raffles counterclaimed that the letter of intent was binding and had been breached.

What did the High Court decide in [2026] SGHC 198?

The court dismissed NPS's claim for the $500,000 deposit and declared the letter of intent binding at least as to paras 3, 11 and 23. It declared NPS had breached para 3, ordered damages to be assessed, and later declared paras 5 and 10 binding.