ABUSE OF PROCESS
In its defence, OG denied that there was any legal basis for the plaintiffs’ suit and described the commencement of the action as “an abuse of process”.
It said the plaintiffs were not in a position to fully pay amounts due under both the lease agreement and a loan agreement known as the facility agreement.
Even after being given time, the plaintiffs were unable to pay what was owed, OG said.
As a result, OG said it had “merely exercised its rights of enforcement based on its security rights, after payment was due”.
The department store owner also rejected allegations of any intent to injure Hao Mart.
If Hao Mart was correct, every lender’s enforcement action risks being characterised as a conspiracy, OG argued.
OG further denied the existence of an oral agreement as alleged by Hao Mart.
“The particulars that the claimants have provided concerning the alleged ‘oral agreement’ are so lacking in detail, including the manner in which the agreement was entered into and the terms of the agreement, that the pleading is frivolous and vexatious,” OG said.
It said there was no agreement that the mortgaged property would be redeemed for S$57.5 million, pointing out that this alleged sum “does not even satisfy” the principal amount of S$66.2 million due under the facility agreement.
