OG rejects lawsuit from Hao Mart-linked company as an ‘abuse of process’

Department store operator OG said the latest lawsuit by a Hao Mart-linked company is “an abuse of process”, arguing that there is “no legal basis” for the claim.

Hao Open Foods is alleging – in the suit filed Aug 5 – misrepresentation, negligence, wrongful interference with trade, and induced breaches of contract by OG over the sub-tenant’s forced early exit from Taste Orchard. It is seeking unspecified damages. The company is owned by Hao Mart chairman Tan Kim Yong.

Taste Orchard was a five-storey concept store operated by Hao Mart at the OG Orchard Point building in Somerset, with its 7.5-year lease terminated by landlord OG in September 2025 after just 18 months.

Hao Open Foods, which operated Yole ice cream and Killiney food outlets at Taste Orchard, said in the case against OG that it was forced to vacate its premises before the expiry of its three-year tenancy after OG required Hao Mart to return the premises.

It alleged in its statement of claim that “OG knew, approved of and consented to the (sub-leases) and the claimant’s occupation and use of the (premises)”.

Noting that only authorised tenants or occupiers of the premises can apply for and obtain a season parking permit at the building car park, Hao Open Foods said in its claim statement that it was granted one.

OG denied all claims, and contended in the defence filed on Tuesday (Sep 1) that Hao Mart breached the lease agreement when it sub-leased the premises to various sub-tenants including Hao Open Foods.

The mere presence and operation of various F&B outlets do not mean that it knew, approved of and consented to the sub-leases, OG argued.

It claimed that it was under the impression that Hao Mart had granted the sub-tenants licences or concession to use the premises.

Also, while OG can grant season parking permits, the mere fact that they were issued does not mean it consented to a sub-letting arrangement, it also claimed.

Furthermore, OG said it is protected by a clause in the lease agreement that says if the landlord overlooks or does not act on one breach of the lease, it is not prevented from enforcing the lease later.

Arguing through law firm Dentons Rodyk & Davidson, OG also pointed out that it does not have any contracts with Hao Open Foods, nor is it a party to any of the sub-leases the claimant had with Hao Mart.

OG said that the party Hao Open Foods should pursue its claim with is Hao Mart – as the other two sub-tenants have done, and added that no one asked for relief against forfeiture when it terminated the lease with Hao Mart.

“This action is nothing more than an attempt by Dr Tan Kim Yong, who controls both Hao Mart and the claimant, to vex and oppress the defendant,” OG said.

This lawsuit is the latest legal action in a string of litigation cases stemming from the Taste Orchard lease.

Other actions include Hao Mart’s lawsuit against PropNex Realty and its salesperson for alleged misrepresentation over the leasing of Taste Orchard, OG's claim of rent arrears among other fees from Hao Mart, and two other sub-tenants that have separately sued Hao Mart after their tenancy agreements were discontinued.

According to the defence, Hao Mart, Dr Tan and his wife had an earlier lawsuit, against OG and the husband of its director over alleged conspiracy to cause loss by damaging Hao Mart’s business, that was discontinued as terms of settlement were agreed.

OG did not spell out the terms in this document. 

Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: SAL Annual Lecture: The Rule of Law as a Foundation of Representative Democracy S’pore-based TikToker Lev Panfilov cleared of raping woman due to inconsistencies in her testimony