SIM KHONG (PRIVATE) LIMITED v LION PEAK PTE. LTD.

Facts

Sim Khong (Pte) Ltd owned 195 Serangoon Road and, under a lease agreement dated 29 June 2022, let it to Lion Peak Pte Ltd for use as a hotel and for retail or food and beverage purposes. The lease was to run until 9 December 2027. Rent fell due on the first day of each month, the tenant had to pay the utilities charges, and it had to keep the property, including the lifts, in good and tenantable repair. Clause 6.1 allowed the landlord to re-enter if the tenant failed to pay rent within seven days of the due date, failed to comply with its other obligations, or suffered an event of insolvency.

The monthly rent of $137,340 for June to December 2024 was never paid in full. On 24 January 2025 the landlord served a statutory demand for rental arrears of $209,680, which remained unpaid at the hearing. The tenant admitted owing utilities charges to Singapore Power Ltd, though it claimed to have an instalment arrangement. The lift maintenance contractor said it had suspended its services because of long payment default, and the tenant confirmed $20,805 was outstanding.

In Originating Application No 1305 of 2024 the landlord sought immediate vacant possession. An Assistant Registrar had earlier refused the tenant's bid to convert the application into an originating claim.

Issues

1. Whether the tenant had repudiated the tenancy agreement so that the landlord could treat it as ended.
2. Whether the tenant was in default under the re-entry clause through unpaid rent, unpaid utilities, unmaintained lifts and insolvency.
3. Whether the landlord had met the conditions in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act for enforcing its right of re-entry, and on what timing.

Holding

Chua Lee Ming J allowed the application on 28 March 2025, save that the tenant was given two weeks to deliver vacant possession. No order was made on the landlord's request for liberty to remove furniture and chattels, as the lease already allowed it. The tenant was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis fixed at $15,000.

Reasoning

On repudiation, the court found that the tenant had tried to meet its obligations but paid late; the statement of accounts showed regular though insufficient rent payments. That conduct did not show an intention not to perform. Nor did clause 6.1.1 turn the tenant's obligations into conditions of the contract; read with clause 6.1.2, it only listed the events on which re-entry could be exercised.

The tenant was, however, in default. It accepted that it had not paid rent on time and in full, and materiality was irrelevant because the re-entry clause did not refer to it. The claimed arrangement with Singapore Power was a bare assertion without evidence, and the supplier's forbearance did not show an agreement. The lifts were part of the property, and the suspension of maintenance was itself a default without any need for a breakdown. The unpaid sums and unsatisfied statutory demand also showed an event of insolvency.

On the statute, the court accepted that where re-entry was sought on several grounds including non-payment of rent, the four-week period in s 18A(3) did not have to be given; a landlord facing several breaches should not be worse off than one facing a single non-rent breach, as s 18A(6) confirmed. The landlord's solicitors' letters of 9 December 2024 and 11 December 2024 complied with s 18 for the utilities and lift breaches, and these remained unremedied over three months later. The statutory demand did not satisfy s 18(1) for the insolvency ground, so that ground alone could not support re-entry. Because the property was in use as a hotel, immediate delivery was impractical, but there was no evidence for the four weeks the tenant sought, so two weeks were allowed.

From the judgment