This is one of four lawsuits involving OG and Hao Mart relating to the lease of the Taste Orchard premises

[SINGAPORE] Department store group OG has denied that it conspired with an individual to injure supermarket operator Hao Mart and its founder, Tan Kim Yong, in a lawsuit involving the mortgage of the latter’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB).

In a defence filed on Tuesday (Mar 10), OG said there was “no legal basis” for the claimants’ claims and called the commencement of legal action “an abuse of process”.

In January, Hao Mart, Dr Tan and his wife, Teo Siew Ling, sued OG and Adam Nicholas Emilianou – the husband of an OG shareholder – for conspiring to injure them by unlawful means.

In their statement of claim, the three claimants alleged that OG and Emilianou had conspired to injure them and cause them loss by damaging Hao Mart’s business.

This is one of four lawsuits involving OG and Hao Mart relating to the lease of the Taste Orchard premises, formerly known as OG Orchard Point. Hao Mart had entered into a 7.5-year lease with OG, but the tenancy was terminated less than two years in.

In the current lawsuit, OG and Dr Tan had entered into a facility agreement on Aug 4, 2023, which saw Dr Tan borrowing S$66.2 million from the landlord.

Navigate Asia in
a new global order

Get the insights delivered to your inbox.

A mortgage was created over a GCB at Jervois Hill in Tanglin, jointly owned and occupied by Dr Tan and his wife.

The claimants said OG’s offer of a term loan facility to Dr Tan was “unusual” as he was not a party to the lease agreement between OG and Hao Mart.

This led to the claimants becoming guarantors, and Dr Tan and his wife becoming mortgagors of their jointly owned GCB.

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

In addition, OCBC had issued a letter of offer to Dr Tan and his wife for a S$57.5 million loan to redeem the mortgage of the GCB.

Hao Mart and Dr Tan have accused OG of reneging on the oral agreement, because Hao Mart is contesting the lawsuit from OG for allegedly breaching its lease agreement of Taste Orchard. This is despite a threat by Emilianou to not contest the action.

Afterwards, OG is said to have objected to the redemption of the mortgage. The claimants said this put Dr Tan and his wife at risk of getting a cancellation fee for not following through with OCBC’s letter of offer.

OG’s defence

In its defence, OG rejected claims that it had conspired with Emilianou to injure the claimants.

It said Emilianou was an employee of OG “at all material times” and was acting within the scope of his authority in dealing with the claimants. There was therefore “no combination or agreement” between the two defendants in the pleaded circumstances.

In addition, OG said the claimants “were not in a position” to fully pay all amounts due under Dr Tan’s loan agreement with OG, as well as the amounts due under Hao Mart’s lease agreement with OG.

OG argued that it was therefore merely exercising its rights of enforcement “based on its security rights” as it was owed payments.

“There was and can be no intention to injure, much less a predominant intention to injure. If the claimants are correct, every enforcement action by a lender risks being characterised as a conspiracy,” it said.

OG also denied having entered into an alleged oral agreement with Hao Mart, which it said the claimants’ accusations of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means are premised on.

It described the alleged oral agreement as “too vague” and “too ambiguous” to amount to an enforceable agreement, as it lacked particulars in its entry and terms.

OG further argued that the claimants “persistently failed to honour their promises of repayment, despite being given opportunities and reminders to do so”.

In September 2025, it informed the claimants that it had given Hao Mart “more than sufficient time” to make payment of the due amounts.

This led to OG instigating a separate lawsuit against Hao Mart to enforce its rights, owing to Hao Mart’s alleged breach of the lease agreement.

“Legitimate enforcement action”

In addition, OG said it had objected to Dr Tan and his wife’s attempt to redeem the mortgage due to the amounts they owed under the facility agreement and lease agreement.

“Any discussions on the redemption of the mortgage were always on the basis that the secured obligations would be fully satisfied first, before the mortgage could be redeemed,” it said.

OG added that the sum of S$57.5 million did not even satisfy the principal amount due under the facility agreement, which was S$66.2 million, “much less than other further amounts” due under the agreement.

OG said, therefore, that all the steps it had taken “were validly done” to enforce its interests and constitute “legitimate enforcement action” by a creditor.

It also denied that the claimants are entitled to any of the reliefs they are seeking.

These reliefs include damages of S$57.5 million; 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.

A case conference for this lawsuit is scheduled for Thursday.

Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.