Hao Mart is seeking S$86,100 in unpaid rent from Belovie, along with damages for the alleged failure to reinstate a unit, as part of an ongoing legal dispute stemming from a sublease agreement.
Hao Mart’s Defence and Counterclaim
In its defence, dated Feb. 24, Hao Mart stated that Belovie entered the sublease agreement knowing and accepting that the master lease could be terminated for any reason. The company, represented by Vita Law’s Sean La’Brooy, argued that the sublease included an implied term allowing Hao Mart to terminate the agreement with reasonable notice should the master lease be terminated.
Hao Mart said a letter of offer dated May 15, 2024, was superseded by a three-year sublease beginning July 15, 2024. The company contends that the letter of offer, which Belovie refers to as a tenancy agreement, does not grant Belovie any rights or remedies.
Hao Mart challenged the S$445,607.70 claimed by Belovie, asserting that Belovie had not demonstrated that the expenditure was incurred in reliance on the sublease or provided a calculation for the figure. The company also stated that equipment and furniture remained usable.
Hao Mart maintained that continued occupation after Dec. 31, 2025, would have been unlawful, citing a High Court order from Dec. 5, 2025, granting OG possession of the building by year-end. Hao Mart also asserted that Belovie was obligated to pay rent until Dec. 31, 2025, and breached the sublease by failing to do so, adding that it was entitled to set off unpaid rent against Belovie’s deposit.
The company described Belovie’s unjust enrichment argument as “misconceived,” stating it was not the owner of the building and therefore not “enriched” at Belovie’s expense. Any benefit derived from Belovie’s expenditure was retained by OG, which took over the premises, according to Hao Mart.
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 S$86,100, excluding goods and services tax, representing unpaid monthly rent of S$28,700.10 from October to December 2025. It is also claiming damages for Belovie’s alleged failure to reinstate the 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 consolidate its four related lawsuits for consecutive hearings. Belovie objected to the consolidation, characterizing its case as a “standalone subtenancy dispute” independent of the other lawsuits.
Belovie argued that consolidation could delay the resolution of its case and increase legal costs by requiring participation in broader case management processes. Belovie’s lawyers noted that OG also objected to consolidation.
Belovie’s case is scheduled for a case conference on March 12 at the High Court.
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
