SINGAPORE – A company that sued an interior designer for nearly $463,000 in damages over delays to its store at Cineleisure Orchard was awarded just $500 by the High Court.
ReFormd claimed that interior design firm Kopigi caused delays and failed to meet the mall landlord’s requirements, pushing the store’s opening back by about two months.
But the High Court rejected the bulk of ReFormd’s case, finding that Kopigi was not contractually required to meet the deadline or the “porosity” requirement that ReFormd said had been imposed on the store’s design.
Kopigi was found to have breached the agreement only by terminating it immediately instead of giving the required one week’s notice.
As ReFormd failed to prove that this caused any recoverable loss, it was awarded $500 in nominal damages.
High Court judge S. Mohan said in a reserved judgment released on Aug 28 that the project was followed by an “unfortunate and rapid breakdown” in the companies’ relationship, resulting in litigation.
ReFormd is a Singapore-based fitness and wellness company that operates personal training studios and several BFT and 24-hour gyms, and has expanded into tech retail.
The companies entered into a consultancy agreement in February 2024 for Kopigi to provide concept and schematic design services for a store selling mechanical keyboards.
ReFormd’s lease for its Cineleisure unit included a rent-free fitting-out period from April 1 to May 31, 2024.
ReFormd’s case was that the works had to be completed in time for the store to start operating on June 1, 2024.
A key point of contention was what the parties called “porosity”.
ReFormd argued that the mall landlord had conveyed requirements affecting the height and visibility of the store’s built-up features and that Kopigi failed to incorporate them into its designs.
The landlord rejected a design submitted by Kopigi on March 27, 2024, with comments including that built-up features should not exceed 1.5m and that the store had to maintain “cross visibility”.
But Justice Mohan found that a fit-out guide provided by the landlord earlier that month did not contain the alleged porosity requirement. The landlord subsequently told the parties on April 4, 2024, that the guide was to be disregarded.
The court also rejected ReFormd’s argument that Kopigi was contractually obliged to work fast enough for the store to open by June 1, 2024, finding that their agreement did not prescribe a specific timeline for the design works.
ReFormd’s attempt to rely on two clauses in the agreement essentially sought to “force a square peg into a round hole”, Justice Mohan said.
He also noted inconsistencies over when the store was supposed to open. ReFormd’s statement of claim referred to June 1, 2024, while this shifted to “early June” at trial. Its internal documents contemplated the third week of June 2024 as the start of operations.
The dispute came to a head on April 15, 2024, ReFormd said in a WhatsApp group chat that its lawyers would issue a letter setting out its position, but that legal action could be avoided if Kopigi cooperated.
Kopigi’s director, Ivan Soh Cher Ming, replied in the same chat. Referring to ReFormd’s “insistent and baseless threats of legal action”, he said: “We will terminate this contract henceforth”.
He followed up with an e-mail reiterating the termination.
Given that the agreement allowed either party to terminate it by giving one week’s written notice, the court found that Kopigi had wrongfully and prematurely terminated the agreement by ending it immediately.
ReFormd had pleaded estimated damages of $462,907.56, including about $38,600 in rent for June and July 2024, about $330,400 in lost revenue, about $75,900 in additional operating costs, and a refund of $18,000 paid to Kopigi.
However, the judge noted that ReFormd appeared to be seeking $143,056 in lost profit in its closing submissions, instead of the earlier claims.
Using its actual profit of $45,143.92 in August 2024 as a baseline, ReFormd applied multipliers to estimate what it could have earned in June and July, citing the Great Singapore Sale and the 6.6 and 7.7 sales promotions.
Justice Mohan found the methodology unsatisfactory. The Shopify documents that ReFormd relied on showed sales rather than profits, while the company had not provided sufficient evidence to establish its claimed losses.
What remained were “essentially bare assertions”, he said, adding: “Such bare assertions could hardly be sufficient to sustain a claim for substantial damages.”
The court also found that ReFormd would have incurred rent and employee salaries regardless of Kopigi’s breach, while there was no evidence that the claimed overtime had actually been incurred.
Kopigi’s counterclaim for $101,896.36 for work done, additional work and costs arising from accelerated timelines was also dismissed in its entirety.
Justice Mohan described the documentary evidence supporting its claim for about $66,990 in acceleration costs as “woefully inadequate”.
ReFormd was represented by TLC Law Advocates, while Kopigi was represented by Chua & Partners.
The court will hear the parties separately on costs.
