Singapore – A beauty salon operator, Belovie, is pursuing legal action against Hao Mart, the former master tenant of the Taste Orchard shopping mall, alleging breach of lease agreement. The dispute centers around the abrupt termination of Belovie’s sublease following changes in mall management, highlighting anxieties among former tenants seeking compensation. The case underscores the complexities faced by sub-tenants when a master lease is unexpectedly terminated.
Belovie operated a beauty salon on the third floor of Taste Orchard, located at 160 Orchard Road, under a three-year sublease agreement with Hao Mart that began on July 15, 2024. This followed an initial letter of offer dated May 15, 2024. However, the situation dramatically changed when Hao Mart’s master lease was terminated on September 12, 2025, forcing sub-tenants, including Belovie, to vacate the premises by December 31, 2025. Although the deadline was later extended, uncertainty remained for businesses operating within the mall.
Hao Mart’s Defense: Sublease Contingent on Master Lease
In its defense, filed on February 24, 2026, Hao Mart argues that Belovie was aware the master lease could be terminated at any time and that the sublease was contingent on the continued existence of the master lease. Represented by Vita Law’s Sean La’Brooy, Hao Mart contends that the initial letter of offer did not grant Belovie any specific rights or remedies. Hao Mart maintains that the May 15, 2024, letter of offer was superseded by the formal sublease agreement signed on July 15, 2024.
Hao Mart is seeking to recover unpaid rent totaling S$86,100 (excluding goods and services tax) from October to December 2025, and also claims damages for Belovie’s alleged failure to reinstate its unit to its original condition. The supermarket operator challenges Belovie’s claim of S$445,607.70 in damages, arguing that Belovie has not demonstrated how the figure was calculated or that the expenditure was directly reliant on the sublease agreement. Hao Mart also asserts that any equipment or furniture remaining at the location still held usable value.
Third-Party Action and Consolidation Attempts
On February 9, 2026, Hao Mart filed a notice to include OG, the owner of the Taste Orchard building, as a third party in the suit. Hao Mart alleges an “oral agreement” existed whereby OG would share the costs associated with terminating the sub-tenancies. OG has indicated it intends to contest this claim.
Hao Mart has also applied to the court to consolidate four related lawsuits into a single hearing, aiming for a more efficient resolution of the legal disputes. However, Belovie has objected to this consolidation, arguing its case is a “standalone subtenancy dispute” and that consolidation could delay its case and increase legal costs. Belovie’s lawyers also noted that OG has also objected to the consolidation.
Timeline of Key Events
- May 15, 2024: Hao Mart issues a letter of offer to Belovie.
- July 15, 2024: A three-year sublease agreement is signed between Hao Mart and Belovie.
- September 12, 2025: Hao Mart’s master lease is terminated.
- December 5, 2025: A High Court order grants OG possession of the Taste Orchard building by year-end.
- December 31, 2025: Original move-out deadline for sub-tenants.
- February 9, 2026: Hao Mart files notice to include OG as a third party in the suit.
- February 24, 2026: Hao Mart files its defense and counterclaim.
- March 12, 2026: Case conference scheduled at the High Court.
The legal battle between Belovie and Hao Mart is part of a larger wave of disputes stemming from the termination of Hao Mart’s lease at Taste Orchard. Evicted tenants have expressed growing concerns about receiving adequate compensation for costs incurred, including renovations and lost business. Belovie’s lawsuit is the first filed by a sub-tenant in the High Court, according to reports.
A case conference is scheduled for March 12, 2026, at the High Court, where the next steps in the legal proceedings will be determined. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for other sub-tenants seeking compensation from Hao Mart following the termination of the master lease. The court will need to determine the extent to which Hao Mart was obligated to protect the interests of its sub-tenants given the inherent risk of the master lease being terminated.
Please consider sharing this article with others who may find it informative. We encourage respectful discussion in the comments section below.
