SINGAPORE: Hao Mart's lawsuit against landlord OG is without legal basis and an abuse of process, OG said in its defence against its former master tenant.
In court documents filed on Tuesday (Mar 10), department store operator OG rejected allegations by supermarket operator Hao Mart and its founder Tan Kim Yong that it had conspired to damage their business.
The dispute centres on a a High Court suit filed by Hao Mart, Dr Tan, and his wife Teo Siew Ling against OG and one of its employees, legal consultant Adam Nicholas Emilianou.
In a claim filed on Jan 16, the three plaintiffs alleged that OG had reneged on an oral agreement to grant them reasonable time to repay a loan and to allow the redemption of a mortgage over a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at 17 and 19 Jervois Hill.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
The GCB, jointly owned by Dr Tan and his wife, is central to the dispute as the property acted as security for OG's S$66.2 million (US$52 million) loan extended to Dr Tan, the plaintiffs had alleged in their statement of claim.
The plaintiffs said OCBC had issued a letter of offer dated Sep 25, 2025, for a S$57.5 million loan to refinance the property, and that OG was aware of this offer.
They alleged that OG subsequently changed its position and commenced separate legal action on Oct 21, 2025.
The ongoing tussle between Hao Mart and OG revolves around the premises at 160 Orchard Road, formerly known as OG Orchard Point.
It was renamed Taste Orchard after Hao Mart rented the premises as master tenant for a term of seven-and-a-half years, originally commencing on Feb 1, 2023. It then sub-leased parts of the area to other businesses.
But from September last year, sub-tenants under Hao Mart were abruptly told to vacate Taste Orchard by Dec 31. The building has since been vacated.
In its defence, OG denied that there was any legal basis for the plaintiffs' suit and described the commencement of the action as “an abuse of process”.
It said the plaintiffs were not in a position to fully pay amounts due under both the lease agreement and a loan agreement known as the facility agreement.
Even after being given time, the plaintiffs were unable to pay what was owed, OG said.
As a result, OG said it had “merely exercised its rights of enforcement based on its security rights, after payment was due”.
The department store owner also rejected allegations of any intent to injure Hao Mart.
If Hao Mart was correct, every lender's enforcement action risks being characterised as a conspiracy, OG argued.
OG further denied the existence of an oral agreement as alleged by Hao Mart.
"The particulars that the claimants have provided concerning the alleged 'oral agreement' are so lacking in detail, including the manner in which the agreement was entered into and the terms of the agreement, that the pleading is frivolous and vexatious," OG said.
It said there was no agreement that the mortgaged property would be redeemed for S$57.5 million, pointing out that this alleged sum "does not even satisfy" the principal amount of S$66.2 million due under the facility agreement.
OG said that Mr Emilianou was an OG employee and was acting within the scope of his authority, and that there had been no conspiracy.
OG also set out the circumstances under which it had entered into a facility agreement as lender and Dr Tan as borrower for a commitment of S$66.2 million.
An agent from property firm PropNex had first approached OG in 2021 on behalf of Hao Mart, which had expressed interest in leasing the Taste Orchard premises.
OG said Hao Mart and OG then entered into a letter of intent and subsequently into an agreement dated Nov 26, 2021. The agreement was amended several times at the request of Hao Mart, who wanted to delay the lease commencement date and extend the rent-free period for renovation.
OG agreed to the amendments out of goodwill, it said.
Around June 2023, Dr Tan informed OG that Hao Mart was facing cash flow, financial and borrowing difficulties. He and Hao Mart then requested financial assistance from OG.
According to OG, Dr Tan told OG of "continual losses at Hao Mart" and hoped that OG could help him with S$18 million to S$21 million in collateral loans.
OG agreed to extend credit facilities to Dr Tan, provided that he was agreeable to the terms set out in a 2023 letter of offer, which required security and guarantees to be furnished, including the mortgage on the GCB.
OG said Dr Tan agreed to the terms and conditions around Jun 28, 2023, and a facility agreement was executed around Aug 4, 2023.
It added that the facility agreement was intended as a short-term bridging loan repayable within 12 months of first utilisation.
Hao Mart then breached the lease agreement, OG said. The matter, involving rental arrears and unauthorised subletting, is subject to a separate lawsuit initiated by OG against Hao Mart in October last year.
OG said Hao Mart owed it around S$6.59 million under the lease agreement.
It added that Dr Tan had also breached the facility agreement by failing to repay sums due to OG. Letters of demand were issued to him multiple times in 2024 and 2025, to no avail.
As Dr Tan failed to repay amounts owed by Aug 10, 2024, events of default were triggered under the facility agreement.
By that date, about S$66.8 million was due. The sum ballooned to around S$73.5 million by Oct 1, 2025.
OG denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any reliefs sought.
The matter is pending before the High Court. The plaintiffs are represented by Vita Law, while OG is represented by Dentons Rodyk & Davidson.
Continue reading...
In court documents filed on Tuesday (Mar 10), department store operator OG rejected allegations by supermarket operator Hao Mart and its founder Tan Kim Yong that it had conspired to damage their business.
The dispute centres on a a High Court suit filed by Hao Mart, Dr Tan, and his wife Teo Siew Ling against OG and one of its employees, legal consultant Adam Nicholas Emilianou.
In a claim filed on Jan 16, the three plaintiffs alleged that OG had reneged on an oral agreement to grant them reasonable time to repay a loan and to allow the redemption of a mortgage over a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at 17 and 19 Jervois Hill.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
The GCB, jointly owned by Dr Tan and his wife, is central to the dispute as the property acted as security for OG's S$66.2 million (US$52 million) loan extended to Dr Tan, the plaintiffs had alleged in their statement of claim.
The plaintiffs said OCBC had issued a letter of offer dated Sep 25, 2025, for a S$57.5 million loan to refinance the property, and that OG was aware of this offer.
They alleged that OG subsequently changed its position and commenced separate legal action on Oct 21, 2025.
The ongoing tussle between Hao Mart and OG revolves around the premises at 160 Orchard Road, formerly known as OG Orchard Point.
It was renamed Taste Orchard after Hao Mart rented the premises as master tenant for a term of seven-and-a-half years, originally commencing on Feb 1, 2023. It then sub-leased parts of the area to other businesses.
But from September last year, sub-tenants under Hao Mart were abruptly told to vacate Taste Orchard by Dec 31. The building has since been vacated.
Related:
ABUSE OF PROCESS
In its defence, OG denied that there was any legal basis for the plaintiffs' suit and described the commencement of the action as “an abuse of process”.
It said the plaintiffs were not in a position to fully pay amounts due under both the lease agreement and a loan agreement known as the facility agreement.
Even after being given time, the plaintiffs were unable to pay what was owed, OG said.
As a result, OG said it had “merely exercised its rights of enforcement based on its security rights, after payment was due”.
The department store owner also rejected allegations of any intent to injure Hao Mart.
If Hao Mart was correct, every lender's enforcement action risks being characterised as a conspiracy, OG argued.
OG further denied the existence of an oral agreement as alleged by Hao Mart.
"The particulars that the claimants have provided concerning the alleged 'oral agreement' are so lacking in detail, including the manner in which the agreement was entered into and the terms of the agreement, that the pleading is frivolous and vexatious," OG said.
It said there was no agreement that the mortgaged property would be redeemed for S$57.5 million, pointing out that this alleged sum "does not even satisfy" the principal amount of S$66.2 million due under the facility agreement.
OG said that Mr Emilianou was an OG employee and was acting within the scope of his authority, and that there had been no conspiracy.
HOW THE FACILITY AGREEMENT CAME ABOUT
OG also set out the circumstances under which it had entered into a facility agreement as lender and Dr Tan as borrower for a commitment of S$66.2 million.
An agent from property firm PropNex had first approached OG in 2021 on behalf of Hao Mart, which had expressed interest in leasing the Taste Orchard premises.
OG said Hao Mart and OG then entered into a letter of intent and subsequently into an agreement dated Nov 26, 2021. The agreement was amended several times at the request of Hao Mart, who wanted to delay the lease commencement date and extend the rent-free period for renovation.
OG agreed to the amendments out of goodwill, it said.
Around June 2023, Dr Tan informed OG that Hao Mart was facing cash flow, financial and borrowing difficulties. He and Hao Mart then requested financial assistance from OG.
According to OG, Dr Tan told OG of "continual losses at Hao Mart" and hoped that OG could help him with S$18 million to S$21 million in collateral loans.
OG agreed to extend credit facilities to Dr Tan, provided that he was agreeable to the terms set out in a 2023 letter of offer, which required security and guarantees to be furnished, including the mortgage on the GCB.
OG said Dr Tan agreed to the terms and conditions around Jun 28, 2023, and a facility agreement was executed around Aug 4, 2023.
It added that the facility agreement was intended as a short-term bridging loan repayable within 12 months of first utilisation.
Hao Mart then breached the lease agreement, OG said. The matter, involving rental arrears and unauthorised subletting, is subject to a separate lawsuit initiated by OG against Hao Mart in October last year.
OG said Hao Mart owed it around S$6.59 million under the lease agreement.
It added that Dr Tan had also breached the facility agreement by failing to repay sums due to OG. Letters of demand were issued to him multiple times in 2024 and 2025, to no avail.
As Dr Tan failed to repay amounts owed by Aug 10, 2024, events of default were triggered under the facility agreement.
By that date, about S$66.8 million was due. The sum ballooned to around S$73.5 million by Oct 1, 2025.
OG denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to any reliefs sought.
The matter is pending before the High Court. The plaintiffs are represented by Vita Law, while OG is represented by Dentons Rodyk & Davidson.
Related:
Continue reading...