Lachman’s Emporium v Kang Tien Kuan: Frustration of Tenancy Agreement Due to COVID-19 Restrictions
In Lachman’s Emporium Pte Ltd v Kang Tien Kuan, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of frustration of contract due to COVID-19 restrictions. Lachman’s Emporium, the plaintiff, sued Kang Tien Kuan, the defendant, for unpaid rent under a tenancy agreement for premises intended to be used as a music lounge. Kang Tien Kuan argued that the COVID-19 measures, which led to the closure of entertainment venues, frustrated the contract. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, dismissed Lachman’s Emporium’s application for summary judgment, finding that Kang Tien Kuan had raised a bona fide defence of frustration of purpose.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment is dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The court considered whether COVID-19 measures frustrated a tenancy agreement for a music lounge. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lachman’s Emporium Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application for Summary Judgment Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kang Tien Kuan | Defendant | Individual | Summary Judgment Application Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Roy Paul Mukkam | DL Law Corporation |
| Ng Yuan Sheng | DL Law Corporation |
| Lim Tean | Carson Law Chambers |
4. Facts
- Lachman’s Emporium leased premises to Kang Tien Kuan for use as a music lounge.
- The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021.
- COVID-19 measures led to the closure of bars and entertainment venues from 26 March 2020.
- Kang Tien Kuan failed to pay rent from March 2020 and August 2020 to April 2021.
- Lachman’s Emporium terminated the tenancy agreement in April 2021.
- Lachman’s Emporium applied to URA for a change of use of the premises.
- IRAS provided a Notice of Cash Grant and Rental Waiver for four months’ rent.
5. Formal Citations
- Lachman’s Emporium Pte Ltd v Kang Tien Kuan, Suit No 474 of 2021(Summons No 4310 of 2021), [2022] SGHC 19
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tenancy Agreement signed | |
| Tenancy Agreement commenced | |
| Defendant failed to pay rent for March 2020 | |
| COVID-19 measures led to closure of bars, cinemas and entertainments | |
| Defendant failed to pay rent for August 2020 | |
| Plaintiff received Notice of Cash Grant and Rental Waiver from IRAS | |
| Defendant failed to pay rent for April 2021 | |
| Tenancy Agreement terminated | |
| Plaintiff applied for change of use of the Premises to URA | |
| URA accorded the plaintiff temporary permission for the change of use of the Premises | |
| Suit No 474 of 2021 filed | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Frustration of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had raised a bona fide defence of frustration of the shared purpose of using the Premises for a music lounge, and dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Supervening event
- Radical change in obligation
- Impossibility of performance
- Frustration of purpose
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 857
- [1903] 2 KB 740
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment, finding that the defendant had raised a triable issue.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Triable issue
- Prima facie case
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 3 SLR(R) 32
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Interest
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Entertainment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 857 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the doctrine of frustration discharges parties from their contract when a supervening event renders the contractual obligation radically different. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 32 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defendant must raise a reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence in relation to the issues in dispute to avoid summary judgment. |
| Krell v Henry | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1903] 2 KB 740 | England and Wales | Cited as a key example of frustration of contract where the purpose of the contract was thwarted by a supervening event (cancellation of the coronation). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 14 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 | Singapore |
| Frustrated Contracts Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Frustration
- COVID-19 measures
- Tenancy agreement
- Summary judgment
- Music lounge
- Shared purpose
- Supervening event
15.2 Keywords
- Frustration
- COVID-19
- Tenancy Agreement
- Summary Judgment
- Singapore
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Frustration | 95 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 80 |
| Summary Judgement | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| COVID-19 Measures | 65 |
| Landlord and Tenant Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Tenancy
- COVID-19
- Frustration of Contract