Faber Image Media v Patrician Holdings: Sub-Tenancy Dispute Over Boat Quay Premises

Faber Image Media Pte Ltd ("Faber Image Media") sued Patrician Holdings Pte Ltd and Rajeev Saxena (trading as V4X Joint Venture) in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of a sublease agreement for premises at Boat Quay. Faber Image Media claimed that V4X Joint Venture failed to renew the main tenancy agreement, leading to the premature termination of the sublease. The court, presided over by Lai Siu Chiu J, dismissed Faber Image Media's claim, finding that Faber Image Media had withdrawn its renewal notice. The court also dismissed the claim against Rajeev Saxena, as he was no longer a partner in V4X Joint Venture at the time of the alleged breach.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sub-tenancy dispute between Faber Image Media and Patrician Holdings over Boat Quay premises. The court dismissed Faber Image Media's claim for breach of sublease.

1.7 Decision Date

12 January 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Faber Image Media Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim dismissed	Lost	Prakash Mulani of M&A Law Corporation Bhaskaran Sivasamy of M&A Law Corporation
Patrician Holdings Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Vijai Parwani of Parwani & Co
Rajeev Saxena	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Prabhakaran s/o Narayanan Nair of Ong Tan & Nair

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Prakash Mulani	M&A Law Corporation
Bhaskaran Sivasamy	M&A Law Corporation
Vijai Parwani	Parwani & Co
Prabhakaran s/o Narayanan Nair	Ong Tan & Nair

4. Facts

Faber Image Media leased part of premises from V4X Joint Venture.
Faber Image Media claimed to have exercised option to renew sublease.
V4X Joint Venture changed its constitution to a limited company.
Landlord allegedly told Faber Image Media to vacate premises due to V4X's breach.
Faber Image Media vacated the sub-premises.
Faber Image Media's solicitors sent letter withdrawing renewal notice.
Rajeev Saxena withdrew from V4X partnership before the alleged breach.

5. Formal Citations

Faber Image Media Pte Ltd v Patrician Holdings Pte Ltd and Another (trading as V4X Joint Venture), Suit 324/2007, [2009] SGHC 16

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2001-02-03	Faber Image Media Pte Ltd incorporated
2004-04-23	V4X business registered
2004-07-01	Patrician Holdings Pte Ltd incorporated
2004-12-07	V4X entered into tenancy agreement with 33 Boat Quay Pte Ltd and 34 Boat Quay Pte Ltd
2005-09-27	V4X entered into sublease agreement with Faber Image Media Pte Ltd
2005-10-15	Sublease commenced
2006-03-29	Rajeev Saxena withdrew from V4X
2006-07-13	V4X Joint Venture Pte Ltd incorporated
2006-08-03	V4X gave notice to renew main agreement
2006-09-14	Faber Image Media claimed it exercised option to renew sublease
2006-09-30	V4X deregistered
2006-10-01	V4X Joint Venture changed to V4X Joint Venture Pte Ltd
2006-10-18	Premises sold
2006-12-19	Faber Image Media's lawyers wrote to V4X
2007-01-29	Faber Image Media's solicitors wrote to the Company
2007-02-11	Faber Image Media arranged to move out its possessions
2007-02-12	Company's solicitors sent letter to Faber Image Media's solicitors
2007-02-13	Faber Image Media's solicitors wrote to the Company
2007-02-28	Faber Image Media vacated the sub-premises
2007-05-28	Faber Image Media commenced suit
2009-01-13	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Sublease Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had withdrawn its renewal notice, and therefore the defendant was not in breach of the sublease agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to renew sublease
  - Breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment
Validity of Renewal Notice
- Outcome: The court initially found the renewal notice to be valid but ultimately ruled that it was withdrawn by the plaintiff's subsequent actions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Sufficiency of notice
  - Agreement on revised rental
Liability of Former Partner
- Outcome: The court held that the second defendant was not liable as he had withdrawn from the partnership before the alleged breach and the plaintiff was aware of his withdrawal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Notice of withdrawal from partnership
  - Continuing liability for firm's obligations

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Refund of Security Deposit

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Entertainment

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Alghussein Establishment And Eton College	N/A	Yes	[1988] 1 WLR 587	N/A	Cited to support the principle that defendants cannot take advantage of their own wrong to avoid legal obligations.
Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR 634	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that defendants cannot take advantage of their own wrong to avoid legal obligations.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Partnership Act Cap 391 1994 Rev Ed	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Sublease
Tenancy Agreement
Renewal Notice
Quiet Enjoyment
Partnership
Limited Company
Vacant Possession
Main Agreement

15.2 Keywords

sublease
tenancy
renewal
breach
partnership
Boat Quay

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Landlord and Tenant Law	90
Breach of Contract	60
Contract Law	50
Estoppel	30
Company Law	20

16. Subjects

Landlord and Tenant
Contract Law
Partnership Law