\n<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
Hao Mart said its letter of offer dated May 15, 2024 was superseded by a sublease for a period of three years starting from Jul 15, 2024.<\/p>\n
It argued that the letter of offer \u2014 which Belovie refers to as the tenancy agreement \u2014 does not entitle Belovie to any rights or remedy.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It added that equipment and furniture were still usable.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It maintained that Belovie remained obliged to pay rent until Dec 31, 2025, and breached the sublease by failing to pay.<\/p>\n
Under the sublease, Hao Mart said it was entitled to set off unpaid rent against Belovie’s deposit.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Any benefit from Belovie’s expenditure was retained by OG, which took over the premises, Hao Mart stated.<\/p>\n
Hao Mart further argued that losses from cancelled memberships or additional rent from a replacement location were “too remote, speculative, and not foreseeable”.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
It is also claiming damages for Belovie’s alleged failure to reinstate its unit.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Hao Mart has also applied to court to consolidate its four related lawsuits so they may be heard consecutively.<\/p>\n
Belovie objected to the consolidation, calling its case a “standalone subtenancy dispute” independent of the outcomes of the other lawsuits.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
Belovie’s lawyers noted that OG also objected to consolidation.<\/p>\n
Belovie’s case is fixed for a case conference on Mar 12 at the High Court.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n