Warehouse owner and tenant sue each other over fire in 2020, judge awards landlord $814
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 24 Jul 2025
Author: Selina Lum
Landlord had sued for $600k; judge finds tenant's only breach was over stamp duty
The owner of a Sungei Kadut warehouse that caught fire in May 2020 blamed its tenant for starting the fire, claiming more than $600,000 in damages in a lawsuit.
The tenant, a scrap vehicle company, countersued for unspecified losses due to the fire, alleging that the fire hose reel in the warehouse malfunctioned because the landlord had failed to properly maintain it.
The High Court dismissed both sides’ claims, but ordered the tenant to reimburse $814 to the landlord for stamp duty under the tenancy agreement.
On July 18, Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan issued written grounds setting out the reasons for his decision.
The judge said the landlord, Feida Bus Consortium, failed to show that the tenant, Royal Autoz Exporter, had breached any terms of the tenancy agreement, except for the clause on stamp duty.
Feida Bus Consortium had alleged that the fire started when the tenant’s employees carried out works either on or near a car at the warehouse – a claim the tenant denied.
It sued Royal Autoz Exporter for alleged breach of contract and negligence.
The judge said there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant’s employees had been working in the warehouse at the time of the fire.
In rejecting the tenant’s counterclaim, the judge said there was evidence that the fire hose was working at the time.
In any event, he said, there was no evidence that the landlord was obliged to maintain fire-fighting equipment in the warehouse.
On May 23, 2020, a total of 19 emergency vehicles and about 100 firefighters were deployed to battle the blaze at 6 Sungei Kadut Way, a Facebook post by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) stated.
The post said the SCDF was alerted to the fire at about 7pm that day and that the fire was put out at 9.15pm.
According to the judgment, the two-storey warehouse was divided into sections, one of which was rented out to the defendant.
The landlord, which provided chartered bus services and conducted vehicle repairs, occupied one section.
Another section was used as a dormitory for workers employed by the landlord and its related companies.
The landlord and the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement on March 24, 2020, which stipulated a monthly rent of $15,000.
Barely two weeks later, “circuit breaker” restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19, and no work was supposed to be carried out in workshops and factories.
On May 4, 2020, a deregistered 2.4-litre Chery Tiggo car was towed into the warehouse.
On May 23, 2020, two of the tenant’s employees were in the warehouse when the fire broke out.
The tenant claimed they were there only to move vehicles into the warehouse.
At about 6.30pm, one employee spotted flames underneath the Chery’s engine and used a forklift to elevate the car.
A resident of the dormitory pulled a fire hose from a reel in the warehouse.
The tenant claimed that no water came out of the hose, but the landlord disputed this.
Flammable liquid ignited as it leaked from the car.
Despite various workers fighting the flames with fire extinguishers, the fire spread, forcing them to flee the warehouse.
The fire damaged the tenant’s stock of vehicles and spare parts. The landlord said various parts of the warehouse’s structure were damaged.
The building was ordered to be closed for about 18 months for repairs. SCDF conducted investigations and issued a report in September 2023.
A forensic firm engaged by the landlord’s fire insurance company prepared an expert report for the trial.
The tenant, represented by Mr Palaniappan Sundararaj, engaged a fire investigation consultant as the defence expert.
The judge noted that both experts, as well as SCDF, were unanimous in their view that the fire likely originated from the car.
The exact cause of the fire remains unknown, said the judge.
The landlord, represented by Mr Thomas Toh, contended that the tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from storing “diesel” tanks in the warehouse.
The judge said he saw no reason to extend this clause to tanks containing other types of fuel.
The landlord also argued that by storing vehicles and a forklift on the premises, the defendant had breached a clause which stated that the warehouse was to be used for “vehicle spare parts and body kit”.
The judge said this clause did not prevent the tenant from using the warehouse for other purposes.
He added that the landlord knew and consented to the tenant using the warehouse for scrapping vehicles.
The landlord also argued that the tenant should have removed fuel from the vehicle before storing it in the warehouse, citing a clause that any chemical that is fire hazardous was to be stored in a safe corner.
The judge disagreed that this meant the tenant was obliged to remove fuel from the vehicle.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1794