Tiananmen KTV v Furama: Interim Injunction for Tenancy Agreements Dispute

Tiananmen KTV (2013) Pte Ltd and others applied to the High Court of Singapore on 27 March 2015 for an interim injunction against Furama Pte Ltd to prevent them from exercising rights of re-entry and reinstatement under tenancy agreements, ceasing electricity supply, disrupting lift services, and setting up scaffoldings. The plaintiffs alleged breach of collateral contracts and fraudulent misrepresentations regarding lease renewals. Justice Lee Seiu Kin dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs did not have a real prospect of success for a permanent injunction at trial.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for interim injunction to prevent Furama from re-entering premises leased to Tiananmen KTV. The court dismissed the application, finding no clear case for breach of contract or misrepresentation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tiananmen KTV (2013) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Furama Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCosts awardedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Low Chai ChongRodyk & Davidson LLP
Alvin LiongRodyk & Davidson LLP
Ang Cheng HockAllen & Gledhill LLP
Tan Kai LiangAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. The defendant, Furama Pte Ltd, owns the Furama Riverfront Hotel, which includes the Annex Block.
  2. The plaintiffs, Tiananmen KTV (2013) Pte Ltd and others, were tenants of Units 01-01, 02-01 and 03-01 of the Annex Block.
  3. The plaintiffs and defendant entered into tenancy agreements for the lease tenure beginning 1 July 2014 and ending 31 January 2015.
  4. The defendant rejected the plaintiffs’ requests for lease renewal.
  5. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's refusal to renew their leases was a breach of collateral contracts and fraudulent misrepresentations.
  6. The electricity supply to the Premises was terminated by the defendant on 1 February 2015.
  7. Blockades were set up around the Annex Block, including scaffolding pieces on parking lots.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tiananmen KTV (2013) Pte Ltd and others v Furama Pte Ltd, Suit No 68 of 2015 (Summons No 512 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 83

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Negotiations for lease renewal between first plaintiff and defendant
First plaintiff sought a lease renewal for three years, with an option to renew for three years thereafter
Meeting between first plaintiff and defendant regarding lease renewal
First plaintiff requested for a one month rent free period for Unit 01-01
Defendant acceded to the first plaintiff’s request for a one month rent-free period
First plaintiff undertook major renovations at its premises at Unit 01-01
Renovations completed at Unit 01-01
Leases renewed for the period of 1 July 2014 to 31 January 2015
Plaintiffs and defendant entered into tenancy agreements
Plaintiffs commenced suit against the defendant
Tenancy agreements expired
Electricity supply to the Premises was terminated by the defendant
Blockades were set up around the Annex Block
Injunction application dismissed
Grounds of decision given

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Collateral Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a real prospect of success in proving the existence of a collateral contract.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that specific performance was not available as a remedy for the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Interim Injunction
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an interim injunction, finding that the balance of convenience did not favor the grant of the injunction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 2 SLR(R) 1
  4. Enforceability of Agreements for Lease
    • Outcome: The court held that agreements for leases must comply with the requirement of writing in s 6(d) of the Civil Law Act to be enforceable.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Interim Injunction
  2. Permanent Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Hospitality
  • Entertainment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chuan Hong Petrol Station Pte Ltd v Shell Singapore (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the principles governing the grant of an interim injunction, including the need to show a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience.
Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing BoardN/AYes[1984] AC 130England and WalesCited for the definition of status quo in the context of interim injunctions.
Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd and othersN/AYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 114SingaporeCited for the higher threshold required for the grant of a mandatory injunction.
NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 565SingaporeCited for the principle that courts will only grant an interim mandatory injunction in clear cases where special circumstances exist.
Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough CouncilN/AYes[1998] Ch 197England and WalesCited to define a lease as dispositive, creating a leasehold interest in land.
London and South Western Railway Company. v. GommN/AYes(1881-1882) 20 Ch.D. 562England and WalesCited to support the point that agreements for leases create an equitable interest in land.
SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd v Schenker Singapore (Pte) LtdN/AYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 651SingaporeCited for the raison d'être of the Statute of Frauds.
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town CorpN/AYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 909SingaporeCited for the object of contractual damages.
Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd and others v Pang Seng MengN/AYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 162SingaporeCited for the purpose of tortious remedies.
Shepherd Homes Ltd v SandhamN/AYes[1971] 1 Ch. 340England and WalesCited as an example of a case where delay in taking proceedings was a relevant factor.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interim Injunction
  • Tenancy Agreement
  • Lease Renewal
  • Collateral Contract
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Right of Re-entry
  • Reinstatement
  • Balance of Convenience
  • Status Quo
  • Agreement for Lease

15.2 Keywords

  • Interim Injunction
  • Tenancy
  • Lease
  • Contract
  • Misrepresentation
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions90
Breach of Contract70
Contract Law70
Misrepresentation60
Property Law50

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Property Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions