Hao Mart and owner sue OG over Good Class Bungalow mortgage, claiming S$57.5 million

[SINGAPORE] Supermarket operator Hao Mart, its owner and his wife have filed a lawsuit against former landlord and department store operator OG and the husband of a shareholder over the mortgage of the couple’s good class bungalow (GCB).

Dr Tan Kim Yong, his wife Teo Siew Ling and Hao Mart lodged the suit against OG and Adam Nicholas Emilianou on Jan 16, alleging that the two defendants had conspired to injure the three claimants and causing loss to them by damaging the business of Hao Mart.

This is the second court case that involved OG and Hao Mart, arising from the lease of the Taste Orchard premises, formerly known as OG Orchard Point.

The supermarket had leased the Taste Orchard premises from OG, but the tenancy ended before the 7.5-year lease was up.

The claimants alleged in the current lawsuit that OG’s offering of a term loan facility to Dr Tan in June 2023 was “unusual” when he was not a party to the lease between OG and Hao Mart.

This led to the claimants becoming guarantors and the couple becoming mortgagors of their jointly-owned GCB in Jervois Hill in Tanglin.

“The motivation of the defendants was wholly unreasonable and unjustified,” the claimants argued through their lawyer Sean La’Brooy of Vita Law.

OG has objected to the redemption of the mortgage and also appointed a receiver to possess the GCB, with Dr Tan and his wife given up to Feb 6 to deliver the property, the statement of claim said.

“The motivation of the defendants was wholly unreasonable and unjustified,” the claimants argued.

The two defendants have not filed their defences but their lawyers from Dentons Rodyk & Davidson told The Business Times that they are seeking legal advice and will defend the allegations and claims vigorously.

The statement of claim noted that OG and Dr Tan entered into a facility agreement on Aug 4, 2023 with the supermarket owner borrowing S$66.2 million from the landlord. A mortgage was created over the GCB Dr Tan and his wife own.

The claimants said that Hao Mart and OG had an oral agreement, under which the supermarket would be given a reasonable time to repay the loan and the mortgage to be redeemed.

They further alleged that the defendants have learned of OCBC’s letter of offer for a S$57.5 million loan to Dr Tan and his wife for them to redeem the mortgage of the GCB.

But OG objected to the redemption on Nov 15, 2025, in response to the notice from Dr Tan of discharging the mortgage on Oct 31.

They alleged that OG reneged on the oral agreement because Hao Mart is contesting the lawsuit from OG for allegedly breaching its lease agreement.

OG’s objection “places a real risk in respect of the continuing availability of the OCBC letter of offer”, the statement of claim said. Also, the claimants said that the defendants knew or ought to be aware that OCBC would impose a fee if the loan facility is not drawn down by the deadline.

The claimants also said that OG’s letter of demand and subsequent appointment of a receiver to take possession of the GCB were acts of abuse of the legal process, with “the intention to injure” Dr Tan and his wife.

The reliefs the claimants are seeking include the court’s declaration that Dr Tan and his wife be entitled to redeem the mortgage of the GCB and an injunction to restrain OG from taking any enforcement action under the mortgage.

They are also seeking damages of S$57.5 million from the defendants.

A case conference for this lawsuit has been scheduled on Feb 23.