Hao Mart’s Defense and Counterclaims in Legal Dispute

Legal Arguments from Hao Mart

In its defense filed on February 24, Hao Mart contended that Belovie entered into the sublease with a clear understanding that the master lease could be terminated for any reason. The firm emphasized that it was an implied term of the sublease that allowed the defendant to terminate it with reasonable notice should the master lease end for any reason.

Represented by Sean La’Brooy from Vita Law, Hao Mart stated that a letter of offer dated May 15, 2024, was ultimately replaced by a sublease effective for three years starting July 15, 2024. The company argued that this letter of offer, which Belovie refers to as a tenancy agreement, grants no rights or remedies to Belovie.

In challenging the claim of S$445,607.70 made by Belovie, Hao Mart asserted that the latter failed to demonstrate that this expenditure was incurred based on the sublease or clarify how the figure was derived. Furthermore, Hao Mart pointed out that the equipment and furniture in question remain usable.

The company claimed that any continued occupation of the premises beyond December 31, 2025, would be unlawful, referencing a High Court order issued on December 5, 2025, which awarded OG possession of the building by the year’s end. Moreover, it insisted that Belovie was still required to pay rent until that date and had breached the sublease by not fulfilling this obligation.

According to the sublease terms, Hao Mart argued it was entitled to offset any unpaid rent against Belovie’s deposit. The company dismissed the unjust enrichment argument as being fundamentally flawed, stating it did not own the building and therefore could not be deemed “enriched” at Belovie’s expense. Any benefits derived from Belovie’s expenditures, it claimed, were retained by OG, which took over the premises.

Hao Mart further contended that any losses associated with canceled memberships or additional rent incurred from relocating were too speculative and not foreseeable to be included in the discussion. In its counterclaim, Hao Mart is seeking S$86,100 for unpaid monthly rent totaling S$28,700.10 from October to December 2025, exclusive of goods and services tax, along with damages for Belovie’s alleged failure to reinstate the unit.

Updates on the Lawsuit Proceedings

On February 9, 2026, Hao Mart submitted a notice to include OG as a third party in the proceedings, claiming there was an “oral agreement” for OG to share the costs involved in terminating the sub-tenancies. In response, OG has indicated its intention to contest this third-party action.

Moreover, Hao Mart has made a request to the court to combine its four related lawsuits for consecutive hearings. However, Belovie has objected to this consolidation, arguing that its case should be treated as a “standalone subtenancy dispute” that operates independently of the results from the other lawsuits. Belovie expressed concern that consolidation could delay the resolution of its case and increase legal costs by necessitating involvement in broader case management processes that are not pertinent to its claim.

Belovie’s legal representatives noted that OG also opposes the consolidation. A case conference for Belovie’s situation is scheduled for March 12 at the High Court.