Hao Mart, founder sue OG for S$57.5 million, allege conspiracy to cause loss by damaging or destroying the business

SINGAPORE: Supermarket operator Hao Mart and its founder, Dr Tan Kim Yong, have sued department store group OG and an individual, alleging a conspiracy that caused them loss by damaging or destroying their business.

The suit, filed on Jan 16, also names Dr Tan's wife, Madam Teo Siew Ling, as a claimant. Dr Tan and Mdm Teo are joint owners of a Good Class Bungalow at Jervois Hill, which is central to the dispute.

According to the statement of claim, the trio are seeking S$57.5 million (US$44.8 million) in damages from OG and a second defendant, Mr Adam Nicholas Emilianou, the husband of Ms Hazel Tay @ Tay Chia Huan Mrs Hazel Emilianou, a director and shareholder of OG. The plaintiffs are claiming conspiracy to injure by lawful and unlawful means. 

The dispute arises from Hao Mart’s lease of retail space that was formerly occupied by OG's department store at 160 Orchard Road. The building was renamed Taste Orchard after Hao Mart rented the premises.

As early as September last year, sub-tenants under Hao Mart were abruptly told to vacate Taste Orchard by Dec 31. Several sub-tenants told CNA they were shocked by the notice and intended to seek compensation from Hao Mart for losses incurred.

At least two other lawsuits have arisen from the ongoing dispute.

CLAIM INVOLVES GCB MORTGAGE 

Hao Mart entered into a lease agreement with OG in November 2021 for a term of seven-and-a-half years, originally commencing in February 2023. The lease terms were amended multiple times due to issues that arose.

On Aug 4, 2023, OG entered into a facility agreement with Dr Tan, under which OG extended a S$66.2 million loan, with OG as lender and Dr Tan as borrower. The loan resulted in a mortgage over the couple’s residential property at the combined address of 17 and 19 Jervois Hill, which is a Good Class Bungalow.

The plaintiffs said it was unusual for OG to extend a loan to Dr Tan, who was not a party to the lease agreement.

They alleged that OG and Mr Emilianou "conspired and combined together wrongfully and with the sole or predominant intention of injuring the claimants and causing loss" including by damaging or destroying Hao Mart's business.

They added that the defendants' motivation was "wholly unreasonable and unjustified".

According to the statement of claim, the plaintiffs kept the defendants informed of refinancing efforts, including with OCBC, but that the defendants compelled them to provide sensitive and/or confidential information.

The plaintiffs allege that Hao Mart and OG later reached an oral agreement, under which OG agreed to give Hao Mart reasonable time for the repayment and allow the mortgage to be redeemed.

OG was supposedly aware that OCBC had issued a letter of offer to Dr Tan and his wife on Sep 25, 2025, extending a loan amount of S$57.5 million for the redemption of the mortgage. 

However, OG subsequently changed its position, and sued Hao Mart on Oct 21, 2025, in relation to the Taste Orchard tenancy.

The plaintiffs further claim that on Oct 23, 2025, Mr Emilianou sent a WhatsApp message to a corporate financial advisor engaged by Hao Mart.

In the message, Mr Emilianou is said to have stated that OG "only asked one thing from Dr Tan" in the past 10 months while giving him time and opportunity to restructure his business and assets.

"The fact that he is unable to reciprocate on our request suggests there is no cooperation. If this is the path you wish to take, please don't expect any return," Mr Emilianou allegedly stated.

The plaintiffs understood the request was for Hao Mart not to contest OG's lawsuit. They took it as a "threat" that OG would renege on what had been verbally agreed upon earlier.

Following this, OG is said to have objected to the redemption of the mortgage, placing Dr Tan and Mdm Teo at risk of incurring a cancellation fee for failing to follow through with OCBC's letter of offer.

OG issued a letter of demand to this effect and instructed receivers to take steps towards taking possession of the Jervois Hill property. These actions amounted to an intention to "further injure" the couple and were an abuse of legal action, the plaintiffs argued.

In the alternative, the plaintiffs are also suing for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. They allege that the defendants, having agreed to allow the mortgage to be redeemed and the facility agreement to be repaid through financing in respect of a company, Advanced Integrated Manufacturing Corp, wrongfully raised objections to the notice of redemption. 

They also argue that the defendants are improperly seeking to use the powers of the receiver, including the power of sale of the Jervois Hill property.

Apart from damages, the plaintiffs are seeking court orders confirming their right to redeem the mortgage and stopping OG from taking or selling the Jervois Hill property.

The plaintiffs also called on the court to determine the amount owed under the loan facility, and to allow them to pay that amount to discharge the guarantee.

The plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Vita Law. According to the firm, OG’s lawyers from Dentons Rodyk have been served with the court papers.

In response to CNA's queries, OG and Mr Emilianou said in a statement that Dr Tan and his wife "owe OG substantial amounts of money" and that "the basis for these debts owed to OG are well documented based on agreements signed by the relevant parties".

They added: "Yet, allegations and claims are made against OG and Mr Emilianou, which are baseless in their view.

"OG and Mr Emilianou are seeking legal advice and will defend these allegations and claims vigorously," the statement read.

Vita Law is also acting for Hao Mart in two related lawsuits. One involves an action against PropNex Realty and an agent for alleged misrepresentation over the Taste Orchard lease.

Subsequently, OG sued Hao Mart for alleged breaches of the Taste Orchard lease.