planHao Mart founder pledges January repayment as OG bungalow foreclosure halts
The Jervois Hill home backed a S$66.2 million loan linked to Taste Orchard. The reported repayment pledge is a different question from two separate claims.
Hao Mart founder Dr Tan Kim Yong has reportedly halted OG’s foreclosure of his Jervois Hill bungalow, after telling the High Court he has funding support and will redeem the mortgage by 29 January 2027. The development was reported on 29 October 2026.
Behind that update is a financing arrangement that joined a retail venture to a residential property. Department store operator OG extended a S$66.2 million loan to Tan in 2023, while the home belonging to Tan and his wife, Teo Siew Ling, was mortgaged to raise funds for the food-themed mall Taste Orchard. For a homeowner following the case, the useful distinction is who borrowed, what property supported the borrowing and which amounts are separate claims.
The borrower, the bungalow and the business
The reported facility agreement dates to 4 August 2023. It named OG as lender and Tan as borrower. The mortgage covered the couple’s residential property at the combined address of 17 and 19 Jervois Hill, described in the financing account as a Good Class Bungalow.
Those details explain why this is also a property story. The financing was connected to Taste Orchard, but the asset mortgaged to OG was the couple’s home. The reported borrower was Tan, rather than simply the supermarket business whose name appears throughout the dispute. Keeping those identities clear makes the subsequent claims easier to follow.
An earlier account described the couple resisting foreclosure by receivers appointed by OG. It also reported that an assistant registrar had declined their application to convert the receivers’ originating application into an originating claim. That procedural development belongs to the earlier stage of the dispute; the October 2026 update is the reported halt following Tan’s funding statement.
Three sums that answer different questions
The latest report also described Tan, his wife and Hao Mart suing OG and Adam Nicholas Emilianou for S$57.5 million. They allege that the S$66.2 million loan arrangements caused loss.
OG’s separate S$6.6 million rent claim against Hao Mart concerns another demand. It should not be folded into the bungalow mortgage simply because the same businesses appear in the reporting.
| Reported amount | What it describes | Parties identified in the reporting |
|---|---|---|
| S$66.2 million | The original loan facility | OG as lender; Tan as borrower |
| S$57.5 million | The amount sought in a separate suit | Tan, Teo and Hao Mart against OG and Emilianou |
| S$6.6 million | A separate rent claim | OG against Hao Mart |
The facility and borrower are described in the financing account; the two claims are described in the October 2026 update. The figures are being compared by purpose, rather than added into a single debt total.
The S$66.2 million figure identifies the original facility, while S$57.5 million is the amount sought by the claimants. Subtracting the latter from the former would not establish the sum needed to redeem the mortgage. A claim for compensation and a mortgage redemption amount are different questions, and the reports’ figures should stay attached to the purposes they describe.
The company backdrop is another set of numbers
Separate reporting recorded a S$49.6 million loss for Hao Mart’s financial year ended 31 March 2025, up from S$32.8 million in the preceding year. It also described several disputes involving the business, including its Taste Orchard lease and its own suit against PropNex Realty and an agent over leasing those premises. These are company developments, providing context for the retail venture around which the property dispute arose.
What the January pledge makes worth watching
Tan’s reported statement supplies a concrete next milestone: mortgage redemption by 29 January 2027. The halt to foreclosure is the reported development; the funding statement is his explanation of how he intends to reach the next step. It is a repayment commitment, rather than confirmation that redemption has already occurred.
That gives readers a straightforward test for the next property update. Look for confirmation that the mortgage has been redeemed, rather than treating another statement of available funding as the completed outcome. This follows the distinction in the reported sequence: funding support, a stated redemption date and the payment still to be completed.
