SINGAPORE: A beauty salon that previously operated at Taste Orchard has filed a lawsuit against master tenant Hao Mart, claiming damages from the premature closure of its outlet.
Belovie, which ran a beauty salon on the third floor of Taste Orchard at 160 Orchard Road, was one of the many sub-tenants given three months to vacate the premises in September last year.
It is seeking unspecified damages for alleged contractual breaches arising from the early termination.
According to its statement of claim seen by CNA, Belovie claims losses including renovation expenses and purchases of furniture or equipment amounting to around S$445,607.70.
Belovie also claims losses arising from cancelled memberships that relied on its continued operations at Taste Orchard, as well as costs incurred from relocating. It has since moved to Citygate Mall at Beach Road.
In its defence, Hao Mart argues that the sublease was always contingent on the continued existence of the master lease.
The supermarket operator has also filed a counterclaim to recover unpaid rent that it said Belovie withheld after being told to vacate the premises.
In its claim, Belovie said it entered into a three-year sublease with Hao Mart starting around June 2024.
Hao Mart was then the master tenant of the building, which it leased from landlord OG.
Belovie renovated and fitted out its unit for business, spending about S$445,607.70. It also paid a security deposit of S$89,411.85 to Hao Mart under the tenancy agreement.
On Sep 12, 2025, Belovie was among several sub-tenants issued with a written notice stating that the master lease had been discontinued and that occupants had to vacate and return their units by Dec 31, 2025.
Sub-tenants were also asked to reinstate their units to pre-tenancy condition. CNA previously reported that tenants expressed consternation at the abrupt development. Several rejected a settlement with Hao Mart, saying it did not address business losses.
Belovie, represented by lawyers Ang Boon Yaw and Wilson Yeo of Yeo Marini Law, is the first and only sub-tenant so far to initiate a lawsuit against Hao Mart.
The Taste Orchard building has since been vacated.
Several related lawsuits have also been filed in connection with this matter.
In August last year, Hao Mart sued PropNex Realty and agent Michael Tan over alleged misrepresentation in dealings concerning the Taste Orchard lease.
In October last year, OG filed a lawsuit against Hao Mart, claiming rental arrears and unauthorised subletting.
Hao Mart, its founder Tan Kim Yong and his wife then sued OG and an individual in January this year, alleging a conspiracy to cause loss by damaging or destroying their business.
Each lawsuit involves millions of dollars in alleged damages.
Belovie said Hao Mart did not allege any breach or wrongdoing by the sub-tenant.
Following the September notice, Belovie contended that it was no longer obliged to pay rent and therefore stopped payments from October to December 2025.
If Hao Mart seeks to claim rent for that period, the sum should be set off against Belovie's claims for damages, restitution and refund of deposits arising from the contractual breach, the statement of claim said.
Belovie further argued that the ongoing dispute between OG and Hao Mart over the master lease did not justify terminating its sublease early.
By cutting short Belovie’s tenancy without alleging any breach, Hao Mart breached the tenancy agreement, the plaintiff said.
Hao Mart was not entitled to demand reinstatement or deduct related costs where the tenancy was ended prematurely without fault on Belovie's part, it added.
Alternatively, Belovie will rely on the legal principle of “unjust enrichment”, arguing that Hao Mart unfairly benefited from the termination, while Belovie suffered a corresponding loss.
A view of Taste Orchard's third floor on Dec 17, 2025. (Photo: CNA/Koh Wan Ting)
Beyond renovation and equipment costs, Belovie said it incurred losses from additional rental at replacement premises, and from cancelled memberships.
Belovie said its business depended on customer confidence, continuity of location, stable footfall, and the ability to offer prepaid treatment packages and long-term programmes.
It said it experienced a "sharp and immediate decline in business" following the September notice and after news broke that sub-tenants were required to vacate.
"Customers became unwilling to sign up for new packages or programmes due to uncertainty over the continued operation of the claimant’s business at the premises.
"Existing customers were reluctant to renew or extend existing treatment packages," the document stated, adding that footfall decreased substantially.
Belovie hence experienced a "significant reduction in revenue and profitability" even before leaving Taste Orchard.
The company added that it attempted several times to resolve the dispute amicably, but Hao Mart "failed or refused to respond substantively or to engage meaningfully in mediation".
Taste Orchard's vacated second floor, where a supermarket operated by Hao Mart used to be, as seen on Dec 17, 2025. (Photo: CNA/Koh Wan Ting)
In its defence dated Feb 24, Hao Mart said Belovie entered the sublease knowing and accepting that the master lease could be terminated for any reason.
"To give business efficacy to the sublease, it was an implied term of the sublease that the defendant had the legal right to terminate the sublease with reasonable notice if the lease was for whatever reason terminated," said Hao Mart, which is represented by Vita Law's Sean La'Brooy.
Hao Mart said its letter of offer dated May 15, 2024 was superseded by a sublease for a period of three years starting from Jul 15, 2024.
It argued that the letter of offer — which Belovie refers to as the tenancy agreement — does not entitle Belovie to any rights or remedy.
Hao Mart challenged the S$445,607.70 claimed, arguing that Belovie had not shown that the expenditure was incurred in reliance on the sublease or explained how the figure was calculated.
It added that equipment and furniture were still usable.
Hao Mart said continued occupation after Dec 31, 2025 would have been unlawful, citing a High Court order on Dec 5, 2025 granting OG possession of the building by year-end.
It maintained that Belovie remained obliged to pay rent until Dec 31, 2025, and breached the sublease by failing to pay.
Under the sublease, Hao Mart said it was entitled to set off unpaid rent against Belovie's deposit.
Hao Mart described the unjust enrichment argument as "misconceived", as it was not the owner of the building and was not "enriched" at Belovie's expense.
Any benefit from Belovie's expenditure was retained by OG, which took over the premises, Hao Mart stated.
Hao Mart further argued that losses from cancelled memberships or additional rent from a replacement location were "too remote, speculative, and not foreseeable".
In its counterclaim, Hao Mart is seeking unpaid monthly rent of S$28,700.10 from October to December 2025, which amounts to S$86,100, excluding goods and services tax.
It is also claiming damages for Belovie's alleged failure to reinstate its unit.
On Feb 9, 2026, Hao Mart filed a notice to include OG as a third party in the suit, alleging an "oral agreement" under which OG would share the costs of terminating the sub-tenancies. OG has responded that it intends to contest the third-party action.
Hao Mart has also applied to court to consolidate its four related lawsuits so they may be heard consecutively.
Belovie objected to the consolidation, calling its case a "standalone subtenancy dispute" independent of the outcomes of the other lawsuits.
It added that consolidation risked delaying the resolution of Belovie's case, and could increase legal costs by requiring the firm to participate in broader case management processes unrelated to its claim.
Belovie's lawyers noted that OG also objected to consolidation.
Belovie's case is fixed for a case conference on Mar 12 at the High Court.
Continue reading...
Belovie, which ran a beauty salon on the third floor of Taste Orchard at 160 Orchard Road, was one of the many sub-tenants given three months to vacate the premises in September last year.
It is seeking unspecified damages for alleged contractual breaches arising from the early termination.
According to its statement of claim seen by CNA, Belovie claims losses including renovation expenses and purchases of furniture or equipment amounting to around S$445,607.70.
Belovie also claims losses arising from cancelled memberships that relied on its continued operations at Taste Orchard, as well as costs incurred from relocating. It has since moved to Citygate Mall at Beach Road.
In its defence, Hao Mart argues that the sublease was always contingent on the continued existence of the master lease.
The supermarket operator has also filed a counterclaim to recover unpaid rent that it said Belovie withheld after being told to vacate the premises.
Related:
THREE-YEAR SUB-TENANCY CUT SHORT
In its claim, Belovie said it entered into a three-year sublease with Hao Mart starting around June 2024.
Hao Mart was then the master tenant of the building, which it leased from landlord OG.
Belovie renovated and fitted out its unit for business, spending about S$445,607.70. It also paid a security deposit of S$89,411.85 to Hao Mart under the tenancy agreement.
On Sep 12, 2025, Belovie was among several sub-tenants issued with a written notice stating that the master lease had been discontinued and that occupants had to vacate and return their units by Dec 31, 2025.
Sub-tenants were also asked to reinstate their units to pre-tenancy condition. CNA previously reported that tenants expressed consternation at the abrupt development. Several rejected a settlement with Hao Mart, saying it did not address business losses.
Belovie, represented by lawyers Ang Boon Yaw and Wilson Yeo of Yeo Marini Law, is the first and only sub-tenant so far to initiate a lawsuit against Hao Mart.
The Taste Orchard building has since been vacated.
Several related lawsuits have also been filed in connection with this matter.
In August last year, Hao Mart sued PropNex Realty and agent Michael Tan over alleged misrepresentation in dealings concerning the Taste Orchard lease.
In October last year, OG filed a lawsuit against Hao Mart, claiming rental arrears and unauthorised subletting.
Hao Mart, its founder Tan Kim Yong and his wife then sued OG and an individual in January this year, alleging a conspiracy to cause loss by damaging or destroying their business.
Each lawsuit involves millions of dollars in alleged damages.
Related:
BELOVIE'S CLAIM
Belovie said Hao Mart did not allege any breach or wrongdoing by the sub-tenant.
Following the September notice, Belovie contended that it was no longer obliged to pay rent and therefore stopped payments from October to December 2025.
If Hao Mart seeks to claim rent for that period, the sum should be set off against Belovie's claims for damages, restitution and refund of deposits arising from the contractual breach, the statement of claim said.
Belovie further argued that the ongoing dispute between OG and Hao Mart over the master lease did not justify terminating its sublease early.
By cutting short Belovie’s tenancy without alleging any breach, Hao Mart breached the tenancy agreement, the plaintiff said.
Hao Mart was not entitled to demand reinstatement or deduct related costs where the tenancy was ended prematurely without fault on Belovie's part, it added.
Alternatively, Belovie will rely on the legal principle of “unjust enrichment”, arguing that Hao Mart unfairly benefited from the termination, while Belovie suffered a corresponding loss.
A view of Taste Orchard's third floor on Dec 17, 2025. (Photo: CNA/Koh Wan Ting)
CLAIMED LOSSES
Beyond renovation and equipment costs, Belovie said it incurred losses from additional rental at replacement premises, and from cancelled memberships.
Belovie said its business depended on customer confidence, continuity of location, stable footfall, and the ability to offer prepaid treatment packages and long-term programmes.
It said it experienced a "sharp and immediate decline in business" following the September notice and after news broke that sub-tenants were required to vacate.
"Customers became unwilling to sign up for new packages or programmes due to uncertainty over the continued operation of the claimant’s business at the premises.
"Existing customers were reluctant to renew or extend existing treatment packages," the document stated, adding that footfall decreased substantially.
Belovie hence experienced a "significant reduction in revenue and profitability" even before leaving Taste Orchard.
The company added that it attempted several times to resolve the dispute amicably, but Hao Mart "failed or refused to respond substantively or to engage meaningfully in mediation".
Taste Orchard's vacated second floor, where a supermarket operated by Hao Mart used to be, as seen on Dec 17, 2025. (Photo: CNA/Koh Wan Ting)
HAO MART'S DEFENCE, COUNTERCLAIM
In its defence dated Feb 24, Hao Mart said Belovie entered the sublease knowing and accepting that the master lease could be terminated for any reason.
"To give business efficacy to the sublease, it was an implied term of the sublease that the defendant had the legal right to terminate the sublease with reasonable notice if the lease was for whatever reason terminated," said Hao Mart, which is represented by Vita Law's Sean La'Brooy.
Hao Mart said its letter of offer dated May 15, 2024 was superseded by a sublease for a period of three years starting from Jul 15, 2024.
It argued that the letter of offer — which Belovie refers to as the tenancy agreement — does not entitle Belovie to any rights or remedy.
Hao Mart challenged the S$445,607.70 claimed, arguing that Belovie had not shown that the expenditure was incurred in reliance on the sublease or explained how the figure was calculated.
It added that equipment and furniture were still usable.
Hao Mart said continued occupation after Dec 31, 2025 would have been unlawful, citing a High Court order on Dec 5, 2025 granting OG possession of the building by year-end.
It maintained that Belovie remained obliged to pay rent until Dec 31, 2025, and breached the sublease by failing to pay.
Under the sublease, Hao Mart said it was entitled to set off unpaid rent against Belovie's deposit.
Hao Mart described the unjust enrichment argument as "misconceived", as it was not the owner of the building and was not "enriched" at Belovie's expense.
Any benefit from Belovie's expenditure was retained by OG, which took over the premises, Hao Mart stated.
Hao Mart further argued that losses from cancelled memberships or additional rent from a replacement location were "too remote, speculative, and not foreseeable".
In its counterclaim, Hao Mart is seeking unpaid monthly rent of S$28,700.10 from October to December 2025, which amounts to S$86,100, excluding goods and services tax.
It is also claiming damages for Belovie's alleged failure to reinstate its unit.
UPDATES TO THE LAWSUIT
On Feb 9, 2026, Hao Mart filed a notice to include OG as a third party in the suit, alleging an "oral agreement" under which OG would share the costs of terminating the sub-tenancies. OG has responded that it intends to contest the third-party action.
Hao Mart has also applied to court to consolidate its four related lawsuits so they may be heard consecutively.
Belovie objected to the consolidation, calling its case a "standalone subtenancy dispute" independent of the outcomes of the other lawsuits.
It added that consolidation risked delaying the resolution of Belovie's case, and could increase legal costs by requiring the firm to participate in broader case management processes unrelated to its claim.
Belovie's lawyers noted that OG also objected to consolidation.
Belovie's case is fixed for a case conference on Mar 12 at the High Court.
Continue reading...