Fico Sports v Thong Hup Gardens: Tenancy Dispute over Land Use and Sub-letting Rights

In a civil suit before the High Court of Singapore, Fico Sports Inc Pte Ltd sued Thong Hup Gardens Pte Ltd for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and specific performance related to a sub-lease agreement for land use. THG counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought vacant possession. The court, presided over by Justice Judith Prakash, dismissed Fico's claims, finding no misrepresentation or breach by THG, and allowed THG's counterclaim, ordering Fico to deliver vacant possession and pay damages for unauthorized land use.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Fico Sports' claim dismissed; Thong Hup Gardens' counterclaim allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Tenancy dispute involving Fico Sports and Thong Hup Gardens over land use, sub-letting rights, and alleged misrepresentation. The court dismissed Fico's claim and allowed THG's counterclaim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Fico Sports Inc Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Thong Hup Gardens Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jude P. BennyJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Kang Kim YangJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Tan Teng MuanMallal & Namazie
Loh Li QinMallal & Namazie

4. Facts

  1. THG is the head tenant of a plot of land rented from HDB.
  2. Fico is THG’s sub-tenant in respect of a portion of the land.
  3. Fico wanted to use the premises for cooking and eating-in, which THG allegedly misrepresented was allowed.
  4. Fico sub-let parts of the premises without HDB's prior approval.
  5. HDB issued THG a notice to quit due to Fico's breaches.
  6. THG issued a notice to quit to Fico.
  7. The Head Lease was not renewed due to breaches by Fico.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Fico Sports Inc Pte Ltd v Thong Hup Gardens Pte Ltd, Suit No 151 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 237

6. Timeline

DateEvent
HDB notified THG of acceptance of bid for Plot 2.
Head Lease agreement made between THG and HDB.
Letter of intent signed by THG and Mr. Lau.
Fico incorporated.
Sub-Lease entered into by THG and Fico.
THG granted Fico an option to rent additional space.
Fico exercised option to rent additional space.
Fico started action in the District Court against THG.
Parties entered into the Settlement Agreement.
HDB issued THG with a notice to quit.
THG issued a notice to quit on Fico.
Original term of the Head Lease expired.
THG wrote to HDB to exercise option to obtain extension of Head Lease.
HDB replied to THG stating it would only consider an extension after infringements were rectified.
Fico started action against THG.
HDB gave THG one month’s notice to quit.
THG gave a similar notice to quit to Fico.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that THG did not make any misrepresentations to Fico regarding the use of the premises for food and beverage operations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • False representation of fact
      • Inducement to act on representation
      • Suffering loss as a result
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Fico breached the sub-lease agreement by using the premises for unauthorized purposes and evinced an intention to repudiate the sub-lease.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of contract clauses
      • Implied obligations
      • Repudiatory breach
  3. Forfeiture
    • Outcome: The court found that Fico's conduct prejudiced THG's title, entitling THG to re-enter the premises.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prejudice to landlord's title
      • Breach of implied condition

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Mandatory Injunction
  2. Specific Performance
  3. Damages
  4. Declaration

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Landlord and Tenant Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Sports and Recreation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Eng Hui Cheh David v Opera Gallery Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 121SingaporeCited for the elements necessary to prove misrepresentation.
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR 1029SingaporeCited for the principles of contractual interpretation, including giving effect to the parties’ intentions objectively and the use of extrinsic evidence.
Churchward v RQueen's BenchYes(1865) LR 1 QB 173England and WalesCited for the principle that a contract may imply corresponding obligations on the part of a party in whose favor the contract appears to be drawn up.
Barnes v City of London Real Property CoChancery DivisionYes[1918] 2 Ch 18England and WalesCited as an example of a case involving landlords and tenants where the principle of correlative obligation had been applied.
Edmonton Corp. v WM Knowles & SonN/AYes(1961) 60 L.G.R. 124England and WalesCited as an example of a case involving landlords and tenants where the principle of correlative obligation had been applied.
Barrett v Lounova (1982) LtdQueen's BenchYes[1990] 1 QB 348England and WalesCited as an example of a case involving landlords and tenants where the principle of correlative obligation had been applied.
Liverpool City Council v. IrwinHouse of LordsYes[1977] AC 239England and WalesCited in relation to the obligation to take reasonable care.
Leivest International Pte Ltd v Top Ten Entertainment Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 1SingaporeCited for the proposition that the right of forfeiture is waived when rent is demanded and accepted by the landlord with knowledge of the tenant’s breach.
Windmill Investments (London) Ltd v Milano Restaurant LtdQueen's BenchYes[1962] 2 QB 373England and WalesCited for the principle that it is a question of fact whether money tendered is tendered as, and accepted as, rent, as distinct from damages for trespass.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sub-Lease
  • Head Lease
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Notice to Quit
  • Vacant Possession
  • Food and Beverage
  • Change of Use
  • HDB Approval
  • Repudiation

15.2 Keywords

  • tenancy
  • sublease
  • misrepresentation
  • breach of contract
  • Singapore
  • land use
  • commercial property

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Landlord and Tenant Law90
Contract Law85
Property Law75
Misrepresentation60

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Land Law
  • Tenancy Dispute
  • Misrepresentation