An American man suspected of using shell companies to rent homes without paying rent has been accused in another lawsuit of owing nearly a year’s rent and occupying a house for an extended period. In response to the landlord’s suit, he alleged that she had failed to maintain the property properly, listing more than 50 defects. He claimed that his health and work had suffered, even preventing him from travelling overseas for work, and is seeking $20,000 for the loss of work time, as well as damages for “pain and suffering” and defamation.
The plaintiff in this case is corporate lawyer Chan Wan Qi, about 46. In December 2023, she signed a one-year lease with Bundleluxe Pte Ltd, a company owned by Anthony Thomas Price, to rent out her semi-detached house in Burnfoot Terrace in the Siglap area for $8,500 a month.
According to court documents inspected by Lianhe Zaobao (LHZB), Price maintains that he is not a party to the tenancy agreement, which was signed by his company, and should therefore not be held personally liable.
Chan filed the suit against Price and Bundleluxe in February this year, alleging that Price had continued occupying the house after the lease expired. She is seeking $76,500 in rental arrears, interest and double rent for about two and a half months. Price filed an application for striking out, but it was dismissed by a deputy registrar in August this year. The case remains at the pre-trial conference stage and has yet to go to trial.
Apart from this case, Price has been involved in two other lawsuits over house rentals. A 2019 case involving a house in Jalan Selamat in Bedok and $27,160 in rental arrears was eventually settled and withdrawn.
In April this year, he was again taken to court, this time by a couple in their 80s over the rental of a semi-detached house in Lengkong Dua in Kembangan. A State Courts judge ruled in October this year that his actions constituted a “plain abuse of process of the court”, and ordered him to return the property and pay the rental arrears. As of early November, however, he and his family had yet to move out.
Responding to MPs’ questions in Parliament on 4 November, Senior Minister of State for Law Murali Pillai said police were investigating whether Price had committed cheating offences. The Official Assignee and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority are also investigating.
Price’s defence cites more than 50 defects; counterclaims seek tens of thousands of dollars
According to the Statement of Claim in this case, Price and his family lived in the house for 14 and a half months but paid rent only for the first three months, leaving the remaining 11 and a half months defaulted. It alleges that Price has a modus operandi of signing tenancy agreements through corporate entities he controls, subsequently defaulting on rental payments and refusing to return the properties. This forces landlords to undertake lengthy and costly legal proceedings to recover rental arrears and regain possession.
The Statement of Claim also says Price personally represented the company he controlled in the Jalan Selamat case, demonstrating a pattern of using companies and legal procedures to prolong litigation.
The defence denies the alleged breach of contract, saying Price’s family discovered more than 50 defects within the first 120 days of moving in, rendering the house almost “uninhabitable”. Price said he had to help his family arrange repairs and consequently missed important overseas meetings with companies and business partners.
Price also disputes the rental arrears for the contractual period, arguing that the amount should be $68,000 rather than the $76,500 sought by the plaintiff. He claims that the landlord’s failure to maintain the house properly caused him to fall severely ill between April and December 2024, leaving him unable to travel or work. A family member also became extremely ill and missed work as a result, he alleges.
In response to the landlord’s suit, Price has filed a personal counterclaim seeking $20,000 for lost working time, as well as damages for emotional distress. Bundleluxe is seeking a $17,000 rent reduction, $4,000 for damaged electrical appliances and $40,000 for lost income and business opportunities. Both defendants are also separately seeking damages for defamation from the landlord.
In her defence to the counterclaim, the plaintiff pleaded that paying rent is an independent contractual covenant and that rent cannot be withheld because of disputes over repairs. She also says the deposit cannot be used to offset rental arrears and should be forfeited under the terms of the lease.
The plaintiff says Bundleluxe is a shell company with no actual business, assets or income. Its bank account was closed in December 2024 after being overdrawn by $58.66. She alleges that Price used the company to sign the lease to evade personal financial liability, and is asking the court to apply the doctrine of “Piercing the Corporate Veil”. She has also added an allegation of “Conspiracy to Defraud” against Price and the company.
The plaintiff also cites provisions of the Civil Law Act in seeking rent and compensation from Price at $17,000 a month — double the original rent — for the roughly two and a half months he remained in the property after the lease expired.
The plaintiff is represented by lawyers Ng Lip Chih and Mark Tan Jinwen of NLC Law Asia LLC. Neither defendant has legal representation, with Price appearing as a litigant in person.
