iHub Solutions Pte Ltd v Freight Links Express Logisticentre Pte Ltd: Damages, Mitigation, Landlord and Tenant Covenants

In iHub Solutions Pte Ltd v Freight Links Express Logisticentre Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by iHub Solutions Pte Ltd against Freight Links Express Logisticentre Pte Ltd for damages related to the delayed renewal of a tenancy agreement and alleged hindrances. iHub Solutions argued that Freight Links' actions forced them to acquire alternative premises. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, found that Freight Links had breached implied terms of expeditious renewal and quiet enjoyment. However, because iHub Solutions continued to use the original premises, the court determined that iHub Solutions was not entitled to the claimed damages associated with the alternative premises and awarded nominal damages of $100.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment against the Defendant for the nominal sum of $100.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

iHub Solutions sued Freight Links for damages due to delayed renewal of a tenancy agreement and hindrances, but the court dismissed the claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
IHUB SOLUTIONS PTE LTDPlaintiffCorporationClaim dismissedLost
FREIGHT LINKS EXPRESS LOGISTICENTRE PTE LTDDefendantCorporationJudgment against the Defendant for the nominal sum of $100Partial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Dominic ChanCharacterist LLC
Melvyn FooCharacterist LLC
Kenneth TanAri, Goh & Partners
Arivanantham s/o KrishnanAri, Goh & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff claimed damages for alternative premises due to the Defendant’s failure to confirm renewal of an existing agreement.
  2. The Plaintiff continued to use the current premises until the expiry of a renewed term.
  3. The Plaintiff gave notice to renew the agreement for another three years.
  4. The Defendant committed acts to hinder the Plaintiff's operations to persuade the Plaintiff to agree to a higher rate.
  5. The Plaintiff decided to look for alternative premises in case the Defendant refused to renew the SA.
  6. The Plaintiff found alternative premises at 46A Tanjong Penjuru.
  7. The Defendant reverted to the Plaintiff to state that it would offer the renewal of 51.

5. Formal Citations

  1. iHub Solutions Pte Ltd v Freight Links Express Logisticentre Pte Ltd, Suit No 424 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 06

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Service Agreement made between the Defendant and the Plaintiff
SA extended for two years from 1 November 2008 to 31 October 2010 by the 1st Addendum
SA further extended for three years from 1 November 2010 to 31 October 2013 by the 2nd Addendum
Plaintiff gave notice to the Defendant that it wanted to renew the agreement
Defendant committed various acts to hinder the Plaintiff in its operations
Defendant informed the Plaintiff to stop parking its lorry in the grounds of 51
Defendant informed the Plaintiff that it was allocating only one parking lot for the Plaintiff’s staff
Defendant asked the Plaintiff to provide risk assessment forms
Defendant complained about the parking of a disposal bin by the Plaintiff on the grounds
Defendant withdrew requests for documentation
Defendant stated that it would offer the renewal of 51 on 6 September 2013
Defendant sent a cover letter to the Plaintiff with various documents
Plaintiff executed a formal agreement for 46A on or about 16 October 2013
Defendant informed the Plaintiff in December 2013 that it would grant a sub-tenancy agreement to the Plaintiff for 51 for the next three years
Sub-tenancy agreement was signed by the parties and dated 9 December 2014
Writ of summons (and statement of claim) was filed
Trial began
Trial
Trial
Judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Implied Term of Expeditious Renewal
    • Outcome: The court found that the Defendant had breached the implied term to act reasonably expeditiously to confirm the renewal.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Breach of Implied Term of Quiet Enjoyment
    • Outcome: The court found that the acts of hindrances amounted to a breach by the Defendant of the implied term of quiet enjoyment by the Plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Damages
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the heads of damages in question notwithstanding the Defendant’s wrongful conduct.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Implied Term of Expeditious Renewal
  • Breach of Implied Term of Quiet Enjoyment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Logistics
  • Warehousing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appealN/AYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited regarding principles on implied terms.
Sin Lian Heng Construction Pte Ltd v Singapore Telecommunications LtdN/AYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 433SingaporeCited for the prerequisites before the “without prejudice” privilege can be invoked.
Bradford v Bingley plc v RashidN/AYes[2006] 4 All ER 705N/ACited regarding the 'without prejudice' privilege.
Banco de Portugal v Waterlow & Sons LtdN/AYes[1932] 1 AC 452N/ACited for the proposition that the court should adopt a generous approach in assessing the conduct of the aggrieved party in mitigation.
The “Asia Star”Court of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 1154SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court should adopt a generous approach in assessing the conduct of the aggrieved party in mitigation and that the notion of fairness ordinarily requires the aggrieved party who has to incur substantial expenses to mitigate to notify the defaulting party of the proposed course of action it was intending to undertake so as to give the defaulting party an opportunity to take a certain course of action, unless there was “grave urgency” in taking the proposed course of action that rendered such communication impractical.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Jurong Town Corporation Act (Cap 150, 1998 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Service Agreement
  • Implied Term of Expeditious Renewal
  • Implied Term of Quiet Enjoyment
  • Acts of Hindrance
  • Alternative Premises
  • Renewal
  • Sub-Tenancy Agreement
  • ASRS

15.2 Keywords

  • Tenancy Agreement
  • Damages
  • Mitigation
  • Landlord
  • Tenant
  • Covenants
  • Renewal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Landlord and Tenant Law85
Quiet Enjoyment80
Implied Terms75
Contract Law70
Expeditious Renewal70
Damages60

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Landlord and Tenant
  • Commercial Dispute