Latest news with #ChristopherTan
Singapore Law Watch
24-07-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Warehouse owner and tenant sue each other over fire in 2020, judge awards landlord $814
Warehouse owner and tenant sue each other over fire in 2020, judge awards landlord $814 Source: Straits Times Article Date: 24 Jul 2025 Author: Selina Lum Landlord had sued for $600k; judge finds tenant's only breach was over stamp duty The owner of a Sungei Kadut warehouse that caught fire in May 2020 blamed its tenant for starting the fire, claiming more than $600,000 in damages in a lawsuit. The tenant, a scrap vehicle company, countersued for unspecified losses due to the fire, alleging that the fire hose reel in the warehouse malfunctioned because the landlord had failed to properly maintain it. The High Court dismissed both sides' claims, but ordered the tenant to reimburse $814 to the landlord for stamp duty under the tenancy agreement. On July 18, Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan issued written grounds setting out the reasons for his decision. The judge said the landlord, Feida Bus Consortium, failed to show that the tenant, Royal Autoz Exporter, had breached any terms of the tenancy agreement, except for the clause on stamp duty. Feida Bus Consortium had alleged that the fire started when the tenant's employees carried out works either on or near a car at the warehouse – a claim the tenant denied. It sued Royal Autoz Exporter for alleged breach of contract and negligence. The judge said there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant's employees had been working in the warehouse at the time of the fire. In rejecting the tenant's counterclaim, the judge said there was evidence that the fire hose was working at the time. In any event, he said, there was no evidence that the landlord was obliged to maintain fire-fighting equipment in the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, a total of 19 emergency vehicles and about 100 firefighters were deployed to battle the blaze at 6 Sungei Kadut Way, a Facebook post by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) stated. The post said the SCDF was alerted to the fire at about 7pm that day and that the fire was put out at 9.15pm. According to the judgment, the two-storey warehouse was divided into sections, one of which was rented out to the defendant. The landlord, which provided chartered bus services and conducted vehicle repairs, occupied one section. Another section was used as a dormitory for workers employed by the landlord and its related companies. The landlord and the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement on March 24, 2020, which stipulated a monthly rent of $15,000. Barely two weeks later, 'circuit breaker' restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19, and no work was supposed to be carried out in workshops and factories. On May 4, 2020, a deregistered 2.4-litre Chery Tiggo car was towed into the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, two of the tenant's employees were in the warehouse when the fire broke out. The tenant claimed they were there only to move vehicles into the warehouse. At about 6.30pm, one employee spotted flames underneath the Chery's engine and used a forklift to elevate the car. A resident of the dormitory pulled a fire hose from a reel in the warehouse. The tenant claimed that no water came out of the hose, but the landlord disputed this. Flammable liquid ignited as it leaked from the car. Despite various workers fighting the flames with fire extinguishers, the fire spread, forcing them to flee the warehouse. The fire damaged the tenant's stock of vehicles and spare parts. The landlord said various parts of the warehouse's structure were damaged. The building was ordered to be closed for about 18 months for repairs. SCDF conducted investigations and issued a report in September 2023. A forensic firm engaged by the landlord's fire insurance company prepared an expert report for the trial. The tenant, represented by Mr Palaniappan Sundararaj, engaged a fire investigation consultant as the defence expert. The judge noted that both experts, as well as SCDF, were unanimous in their view that the fire likely originated from the car. The exact cause of the fire remains unknown, said the judge. The landlord, represented by Mr Thomas Toh, contended that the tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from storing 'diesel' tanks in the warehouse. The judge said he saw no reason to extend this clause to tanks containing other types of fuel. The landlord also argued that by storing vehicles and a forklift on the premises, the defendant had breached a clause which stated that the warehouse was to be used for 'vehicle spare parts and body kit'. The judge said this clause did not prevent the tenant from using the warehouse for other purposes. He added that the landlord knew and consented to the tenant using the warehouse for scrapping vehicles. The landlord also argued that the tenant should have removed fuel from the vehicle before storing it in the warehouse, citing a clause that any chemical that is fire hazardous was to be stored in a safe corner. The judge disagreed that this meant the tenant was obliged to remove fuel from the vehicle. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
New Paper
24-07-2025
- New Paper
Landlord awarded $814 in case where warehouse owner, tenant sued each other
The owner of a Sungei Kadut warehouse that caught fire in May 2020 blamed its tenant for starting the fire, claiming more than $600,000 in damages in a lawsuit. The tenant, a scrap vehicle company, countersued for unspecified losses due to the fire, alleging that the fire hose reel in the warehouse malfunctioned because the landlord had failed to properly maintain it. The High Court dismissed both sides' claims, but ordered the tenant to reimburse $814 to the landlord for stamp duty under the tenancy agreement. On July 18, Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan issued written grounds setting out the reasons for his decision. The judge said the landlord, Feida Bus Consortium, failed to show that the tenant, Royal Autoz Exporter, had breached any terms of the tenancy agreement, except for the clause on stamp duty. Feida Bus Consortium had alleged that the fire started when the tenant's employees carried out works either on or near a car at the warehouse - a claim the tenant denied. It sued Royal Autoz Exporter for alleged breach of contract and negligence. The judge said there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant's employees had been working in the warehouse at the time of the fire. In rejecting the tenant's counterclaim, the judge said there was evidence that the fire hose was working at the time. In any event, he said, there was no evidence that the landlord was obliged to maintain fire-fighting equipment in the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, a total of 19 emergency vehicles and about 100 firefighters were deployed to battle the blaze at 6 Sungei Kadut Way, a Facebook post by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) stated. The post said the SCDF was alerted to the fire at about 7pm that day and that the fire was put out at 9.15pm. According to the judgment, the two-storey warehouse was divided into sections, one of which was rented out to the defendant. The landlord, which provided chartered bus services and conducted vehicle repairs, occupied one section. Another section was used as a dormitory for workers employed by the landlord and its related companies. The landlord and the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement on March 24, 2020, which stipulated a monthly rent of $15,000. Barely two weeks later, "circuit breaker" restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19, and no work was supposed to be carried out in workshops and factories. On May 4, 2020, a deregistered 2.4-litre Chery Tiggo car was towed into the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, two of the tenant's employees were in the warehouse when the fire broke out. The tenant claimed they were there only to move vehicles into the warehouse. At about 6.30pm, one employee spotted flames underneath the Chery's engine and used a forklift to elevate the car. A resident of the dormitory pulled a fire hose from a reel in the warehouse. The tenant claimed that no water came out of the hose, but the landlord disputed this. Flammable liquid ignited as it leaked from the car. Despite various workers fighting the flames with fire extinguishers, the fire spread, forcing them to flee the warehouse. The fire damaged the tenant's stock of vehicles and spare parts. The landlord said various parts of the warehouse's structure were damaged. The building was ordered to be closed for about 18 months for repairs. SCDF conducted investigations and issued a report in September 2023. A forensic firm engaged by the landlord's fire insurance company prepared an expert report for the trial. The tenant, represented by Mr Palaniappan Sundararaj, engaged a fire investigation consultant as the defence expert. The judge noted that both experts, as well as SCDF, were unanimous in their view that the fire likely originated from the car. Reports from experts, as well as SCDF, said the fire likely originated from the Chery Tiggo car, but the exact cause remains unknown. PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS The exact cause of the fire remains unknown, said the judge. The landlord, represented by Mr Thomas Toh, contended that the tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from storing "diesel" tanks in the warehouse. The judge said he saw no reason to extend this clause to tanks containing other types of fuel. The landlord also argued that by storing vehicles and a forklift on the premises, the defendant had breached a clause which stated that the warehouse was to be used for "vehicle spare parts and body kit". The judge said this clause did not prevent the tenant from using the warehouse for other purposes. He added that the landlord knew and consented to the tenant using the warehouse for scrapping vehicles. The landlord also argued that the tenant should have removed fuel from the vehicle before storing it in the warehouse, citing a clause that any chemical that is fire hazardous was to be stored in a safe corner. The judge disagreed that this meant the tenant was obliged to remove fuel from the vehicle.
The Star
23-07-2025
- Automotive
- The Star
Singapore warehouse owner and tenant sue each other over fire in 2020, judge awards landlord S$814
SINGAPORE: The owner of a Sungei Kadut warehouse that was set ablaze in May 2020 blamed its tenant for starting the fire, claiming more than S$600,000 in damages in a lawsuit. The tenant, a scrap vehicle company, countersued for unspecified losses due to the fire, alleging that the fire hose reel in the warehouse malfunctioned because the landlord had failed to properly maintain it. The High Court dismissed both sides' claims, but ordered the tenant to reimburse $814 to the landlord for stamp duty under the tenancy agreement. On July 18, Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan issued written grounds setting out the reasons for his decision. The judge said the landlord, Feida Bus Consortium, failed to show that the tenant, Royal Autoz Exporter, had breached any terms of the tenancy agreement, except for the clause on stamp duty. Feida Bus Consortium had alleged that the fire started when the tenant's employees carried out works either on or near a car at the warehouse – a claim the tenant denied. It sued Royal Autoz Exporter for alleged breach of contract and negligence. The judge said there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant's employees had been working in the warehouse at the time of the fire. In rejecting the tenant's counterclaim, the judge said there was evidence that the fire hose was working at the time. In any event, he said, there was no evidence that the landlord was obliged to maintain fire-fighting equipment in the warehouse. Reports from experts, as well as SCDF, said the fire likely originated from the Chery Tiggo car, but the exact cause remains unknown. - Photo: Court documents On May 23, 2020, a total of 19 emergency vehicles and about 100 firefighters were deployed to battle the blaze at 6 Sungei Kadut Way, a Facebook post by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) stated. The post said the SCDF was alerted to the fire at about 7pm that day; the fire was put out at 9.15pm. According to the judgment, the two-storey warehouse was divided into sections, one of which was rented out to the defendant. The landlord, which provided chartered bus services and conducted vehicle repairs, occupied one section. Another section was used as a dormitory for workers employed by the landlord and its related companies. The landlord and the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement on March 24, 2020, which stipulated a monthly rent of $15,000. Barely two weeks later, 'circuit breaker' restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19, and no work was supposed to be carried out in workshops and factories. On May 4, 2020, a deregistered 2.4-litre Chery Tiggo car was towed into the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, two of the tenant's employees were in the warehouse when the fire broke out. The tenant claimed they were there only to move vehicles into the warehouse. At about 6.30pm, one employee spotted flames underneath the Chery's engine and used a forklift to elevate the car. A resident of the dormitory pulled a fire hose from a reel in the warehouse. The tenant claimed that no water came out of the hose, but the landlord disputed this. Flammable liquid ignited as it leaked from the car. Despite various workers fighting the flames with fire extinguishers, the fire spread, forcing them to flee the warehouse. The fire damaged the tenant's stock of vehicles and spare parts. The landlord said various parts of the warehouse's structure were damaged. The building was ordered to be closed for about 18 months for repairs. SCDF conducted investigations and issued a report in September 2023. A forensic firm engaged by the landlord's fire insurance company prepared an expert report for the trial. The tenant, represented by Palaniappan Sundararaj, engaged a fire investigation consultant as the defence expert. The judge noted that both experts, as well as SCDF, were unanimous in their view that the fire likely originated from the car. The exact cause of the fire remains unknown, said the judge. The landlord, represented by Thomas Toh, contended that the tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from storing 'diesel' tanks in the warehouse. The judge said he saw no reason to extend this clause to tanks containing other types of fuel. The landlord also argued that by storing vehicles and a forklift on the premises, the defendant had breached a clause which stated that the warehouse was to be used for 'vehicle spare parts and body kit'. The judge said this clause did not prevent the tenant from using the warehouse for other purposes. He added that the landlord knew and consented to the tenant using the warehouse for scrapping vehicles. The landlord also argued that the tenant should have removed fuel from the vehicle before storing it in the warehouse, citing a clause that any chemical that is fire hazardous was to be stored in a safe corner. The judge disagreed that this meant the tenant was obliged to remove fuel from the vehicle. - The Straits Times/ANN
Straits Times
23-07-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Warehouse owner and tenant sue each other over fire in 2020, judge awards landlord $814
Find out what's new on ST website and app. SCDF deployed 19 emergency vehicles and about 100 firefighters to battle the blaze at 6 Sungei Kadut Way. SINGAPORE - The owner of a Sungei Kadut warehouse that was set ablaze in May 2020 blamed its tenant for starting the fire, claiming more than $600,000 in damages in a lawsuit. The tenant, a scrap vehicle company, countersued for unspecified losses due to the fire, alleging that the fire hose reel in the warehouse malfunctioned because the landlord had failed to properly maintain it. The High Court dismissed both sides' claims, but ordered the tenant to reimburse $814 to the landlord for stamp duty under the tenancy agreement. On July 18, Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan issued written grounds setting out the reasons for his decision. The judge said the landlord, Feida Bus Consortium, failed to show that the tenant, Royal Autoz Exporter, had breached any terms of the tenancy agreement, except for the clause on stamp duty. Feida Bus Consortium had alleged that the fire started when the tenant's employees carried out works either on or near a car at the warehouse – a claim the tenant denied. It sued Royal Autoz Exporter for alleged breach of contract and negligence. The judge said there was insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant's employees had been working in the warehouse at the time of the fire. In rejecting the tenant's counterclaim, the judge said there was evidence that the fire hose was working at the time. In any event, he said, there was no evidence that the landlord was obliged to maintain fire-fighting equipment in the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, a total of 19 emergency vehicles and about 100 firefighters were deployed to battle the blaze at 6 Sungei Kadut Way, a Facebook post by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) stated. The post said the SCDF was alerted to the fire at about 7pm that day; the fire was put out at 9.15pm. According to the judgment, the two-storey warehouse was divided into sections, one of which was rented out to the defendant. The landlord, which provided chartered bus services and conducted vehicle repairs, occupied one section. Another section was used as a dormitory for workers employed by the landlord and its related companies. The landlord and the defendant entered into a tenancy agreement on March 24, 2020, which stipulated a monthly rent of $15,000. Barely two weeks later, 'circuit breaker' restrictions were implemented to curb the spread of Covid-19, and no work was supposed to be carried out in workshops and factories. On May 4, 2020, a deregistered 2.4-litre Chery Tiggo car was towed into the warehouse. On May 23, 2020, two of the tenant's employees were in the warehouse when the fire broke out. The tenant claimed they were there only to move vehicles into the warehouse. At about 6.30pm, one employee spotted flames underneath the Chery's engine and used a forklift to elevate the car. A resident of the dormitory pulled a fire hose from a reel in the warehouse. The tenant claimed that no water came out of the hose, but the landlord disputed this. Flammable liquid ignited as it leaked from the car. Despite various workers fighting the flames with fire extinguishers, the fire spread, forcing them to flee the warehouse. The fire damaged the tenant's stock of vehicles and spare parts. The landlord said various parts of the warehouse's structure were damaged. The building was ordered to be closed for about 18 months for repairs. SCDF conducted investigations and issued a report in September 2023. A forensic firm engaged by the landlord's fire insurance company prepared an expert report for the trial. The tenant, represented by Mr Palaniappan Sundararaj, engaged a fire investigation consultant as the defence expert. The judge noted that both experts, as well as SCDF, were unanimous in their view that the fire likely originated from the car. Reports from experts, as well as SCDF, said the fire likely originated from the Chery Tiggo car, but the exact cause remains unknown. PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS The exact cause of the fire remains unknown, said the judge. The landlord, represented by Mr Thomas Toh, contended that the tenancy agreement prohibited the tenant from storing 'diesel' tanks in the warehouse. The judge said he saw no reason to extend this clause to tanks containing other types of fuel. The landlord also argued that by storing vehicles and a forklift on the premises, the defendant had breached a clause which stated that the warehouse was to be used for 'vehicle spare parts and body kit'. The judge said this clause did not prevent the tenant from using the warehouse for other purposes. He added that the landlord knew and consented to the tenant using the warehouse for scrapping vehicles. The landlord also argued that the tenant should have removed fuel from the vehicle before storing it in the warehouse, citing a clause that any chemical that is fire hazardous was to be stored in a safe corner. The judge disagreed that this meant the tenant was obliged to remove fuel from the vehicle.
Business Times
05-06-2025
- Business
- Business Times
How to invest through Trump's turbulent tariffs for a young investor
[SINGAPORE] China and the United States have agreed to reduce reciprocal tariffs on each other for 90 days and commit to trade talks, a move that has calmed investors fearing a global slowdown. Knowing that, how should you invest differently? Buy stocks, they say – but which ones? Stocks from practically every developed country will benefit. Or buy the US dollar, which investors have fled from since the tariffs? Perhaps sell gold, which investors have lately been turning to for safety? The problem, as you may have already realised, is that unless you had insider knowledge that the tariff pause was going to happen, it's probably too late to do all of these things. The S&P 500 stock market index jumped 3.3 per cent (that's huge for an index) on Monday (May 12), following the tariff pause announcement. The US dollar surged while gold lost 2.7 per cent. Some may say that the news of the tariff pause is 'priced-in'. As regular Joe investors, that's the challenge we often face. We'll often be late if we try to make short-term trading decisions based on the news we read. (Trading bots and professional traders would have reacted before we finished reading the article.) A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 3 pm Thrive Money, career and life hacks to help young adults stay ahead of the curve. Sign Up Sign Up We're at the stage now where the US tariffs on most countries, including China, have been temporarily lowered. (Additional tariffs on Chinese imports were reduced from 145 per cent to 30 per cent, and the universal 10 per cent tariffs on most countries remain in place.) While financial markets cheered the move, businesses are still unsure of what will happen after the 90 days. So, how should we invest when the future is so uncertain? 🕜 How long is 'long term'? Firstly, don't panic and avoid knee-jerk reactions. One of the golden rules of long-term investing is to stay invested and not panic sell at the first hint of trouble. Your stock investments may rise and fall dramatically from week to week. But zoom out, and you'll see that stocks will rise over the long term. But there's nuance to this truism – I'll touch on two. Firstly, the US stock market often bounces back quickly after a decline. This may take months or a couple of years. Some crashes have taken longer. If you had invested in the S&P 500 index before the dot-com bubble in 2000, your investment wouldn't have grown even after 10 years had passed. Going further back to the Great Depression in the 1930s, the S&P 500 took 15 years to recover. Christopher Tan, chief executive officer of wealth advisory firm Providend, notes that it was during this time that the US enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, now widely blamed for worsening the Great Depression. The Act raised US tariffs on foreign imports by about 20 per cent – sounds familiar? While there's no telling if history will repeat itself, it's important to prepare for the possibility of prolonged drawdowns to our portfolios. And if we can't stomach that, take steps to strike a balance that'll help us sleep well at night. 🧺 What you're invested in matters Secondly, we've so far been talking about the S&P 500, the de facto measure of the US stock market that tracks the performance of the 500 leading companies listed in the US. It's often said that all you need for investments is to buy an S&P 500 index fund, and you're set. While investors who followed this bit of advice have profited greatly, experts have warned that investors who hold only an S&P 500 index fund may not be diversifying their investments enough. While the US market has done well over the past 100 years, there's a growing worry that things will not remain the same in the future, especially given US President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again stance on tariffs. With volatility ahead, many analysts recommend reducing risk to protect your capital. After all, Trump's trade war has only paused, not ended, and the US' 10 per cent tariffs on most foreign goods are still in place. But rather than sell off your investments and wait for things to settle down, consider spreading your funds across different assets and geographies. Diversify by geography: If you're heavily invested in the US stock market, consider adding stocks or index funds from countries as well. Alternatively, you may wish to invest in a fund that tracks a globally diversified index such as the MSCI All-Country World Index or the FTSE All-World Index. An added benefit of diversifying your portfolio beyond the US is that it reduces currency risk. With the recent weakening US dollar, those heavily invested in US stocks may have experienced their portfolios losing value in Singapore-dollar terms. Diversify by assets: If you're heavily invested in stocks, consider adding other asset types into your portfolio that can cushion the volatility in the stock market. Commonly, investors have turned to bonds for this because they tend to do well when stocks do badly. But this hasn't been the case in recent years, such as in 2022 when both stocks and bonds suffered negative returns. Alternatives include gold, which has been the best-performing asset class this year. Gold prices surged more than 20 per cent this year to date, but many analysts believe it can go higher. Gold is often described as a safe haven asset because it is a reliable store of value through times of geopolitical uncertainty and inflation. Central banks around the world have also been buying up gold as they seek to diversify their reserves from the US dollar. Financial advisors typically recommend not holding more than 10 per cent of your portfolio in gold, in the same way you won't want to hold too large a percentage of an individual stock. TL;DR
