TAKEAWAYS FROM A RENOVATION DISPUTE
In this short blog, we set out some observations from PS 23 Interior Pte. Ltd. v Andrew Tan Tong Sin [2026] SGMC 71 (the “Judgment”).
Background. The claimant was engaged by the defendant pursuant to a quotation for design and renovation works to carry out various design and renovation works at the defendant’s landed property (Judgment [1]).
Disputes arose as to whether the defendant had made payment of sums that are due to the claimant (Judgment [1], [3] – [4]), including for variations (Judgment [2]), and as set out in Judgment [5], there were four key issues:
The proper contracting party;
Which version of the variation orders accurately captured the terms of the contract;
Whether the defendant owed the claimant $31,604.13 based on two invoices issued by the claimant; and
Whether the claimant breached the contract due to incomplete and/or defective works.
The Court only allowed the claim in part and dismissed the counterclaim (Judgment [7]).
In this blog, we take a look at some of the Court’s findings and observations, and muse about some takeaways from them.
Messy and confused. At Judgment [15], the Court commented that the claimant’s documentation on variations was “messy and confused”. This is because:
The claimant’s documentation had a potential discrepancy over the number of variations that were issued (see Judgment [12]).
The document titled “VO2” contained details relating to VO3, as well as omission items (see Judgment [15]).
There was no stand-alone document for VO1 (see Judgment [15]).
While the messy and confused documentation was not ultimately fatal to all of the claimant’s claims, the Judgment suggests that the state of documentation did pose issues for the claimant. For example, at Judgment [57], the Court found that the defendant’s documentation appeared to be more accurate - not a position that any claimant would want to be in.
Indeed, when addressing the issue of omissions, the Court made the following statements:
At Judgment [45], the Court stated that “[i]t is in no way an excuse for an interior designer to create and adduce into evidence a completely inaccurate VO.”
At Judgment [54], the Court stated that “all the documents which the Claimant issues to its clients and tenders to Court must be accurate. Where there are amendments to the scope and/or nature of these works, the Claimant must be all the more careful to ensure the accuracy of its documentary record.”
Observations. While basic, it bears emphasizing that when presenting claims for variations, it is crucial to be clear how many variations are being claimed (as well as what you are claiming for), and which documentation are being relied upon to support each variation claim.
It is ideal to ensure that each variation claim has its own set of supporting documents that would establish the entitlement, rate, and quantum. This includes addressing, e.g.:
Entitlement: Is the variation based on a written instruction, and if so, where is the instruction found?
Rate: Is the valuation based on the schedule of rates, and if so, which item in the schedule of rates and why?
Quantum: What are the documents being relied upon to establish quantities, and why are the documents accurate?
Additionally, segregating one variation claim from the other, and maintaining a clear and consistent reference, will ensure that a court / tribunal will have an easier task identifying and keeping track of the relevant documentation in the event of a dispute. If your correspondence mixes up various variations, it may lead to a situation where, if there is no consistent referencing, a court / tribunal may find your case to be difficult to follow.
These observations applies with equal force to omissions.
Agreement for additional works vs. agreement on costs of additional works. At Judgment [78(b)], the Court stated that it was prepared to accept that there was a verbal agreement for the claimant to install larger tiles in the master bathroom after the contract was finalized.
At first blush, this would appear to suggest that the claimant’s case, that it should be entitled to claim for additional costs as larger tiles would require more labour, would therefore succeed (see Judgment [76]).
However, at Judgment [78(c)], the Court held that “[a]n agreement to carry out works is not the same as an agreement on the price of these works.”
This proved fatal to the claimant’s case, for the Court held that the claimant “… must not only prove the agreement to install the larger tiles (which it has), but it must also prove that the Defendant knew of and agreed to the additional costs in respect of the same at the time of contract formation” (emphasis in original).
Crucially, the Court recorded at Judgment [78(c)] that the claimant’s witness conceded that the defendant was not informed of the additional costs until after the works were completed.
Observations. This is a quintessential construction dispute. As made clear by the Judgment, even where there is a verbal agreement to carry out additional works, it is not the same as an agreement for price.
This is a vivid illustration of the potential perils (to a contractor) of carrying out works based on a verbal instruction, without first confirming the instruction and the price of the additional works in writing.
Having said that, based off the reported judgement at Judgment [76], the pleaded case appeared to be premised on a verbal agreement on price.
It is unclear if the above finding would remain the same if there is a case brought on the basis of quantum meruit, i.e., that the defendant would be liable to pay a reasonable sum for the additional works done, or if a case was brought on the basis that there was an implied term that the claimant would be entitled to claim for additional payment (at a reasonable price) for these additional works.
We leave our readers with this food for thought.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication. Chancery Law Corporation is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance based on this publication.