They have been seeking compensation from Hao Mart for renovation costs and loss of business
[SINGAPORE] As the official move-out deadline looms for the evicted sub-tenants of Taste Orchard shopping mall, many are increasingly worried that they will not receive compensation from supermarket chain Hao Mart for the early termination of their leases.
The sub-tenants, most of whom are small-business owners, told The Straits Times that they are also confused about the deadline to vacate the premises. An earlier notification stating that the initial Dec 31 date will be extended to March 31, 2026, has become uncertain, they said.
Hao Mart was the mall’s master tenant before its lease was terminated on Sep 12, catching some 30 sub-tenants off-guard. They range from hair salons to aesthetic clinics and tuition centres.
Since then, the sub-tenants have been seeking compensation from Hao Mart for their renovation costs and loss of business, but ST understands that the master tenant has yet to give a firm response.
At least one sub-tenant showed ST an e-mail which indicated that Hao Mart’s lawyers had not received instruction on compensation, “the liability of which is not admitted”.
“This should not be construed as an instruction by our client not to engage sub-tenants on compensation or mediation,” the e-mail said.
A request by sub-tenants to seek a resolution through mediation in November was opposed by Hao Mart’s lawyers, according to e-mails reviewed by ST.
ST understands that at least five sub-tenants have applied to the Singapore Mediation Centre.
In response to ST’s queries, Esther Yong of Watershed Law – Hao Mart’s appointed legal representatives – said on Dec 10 that while her client has been open to discussions on resolving the matter without going to court, it has disputed the applicability of mediation under the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises (LARP) – Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme.
SEE ALSO
According to Yong, the scheme applies “only to alleged non-compliance with leasing principles under the Lease Agreements for Retail Premises Act 2023”.
“For the sub-tenants who submitted their disputes under the LARP Scheme, we informed the adjudicators that the sub-tenancies contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Singapore Courts.
“Accordingly, Hao Mart stated that the proper recourse for a sub-tenant seeking a determination of its claim should do so before the Singapore Courts, instead of adjudication under the LARP Scheme.”
She added the adjudicator had on Dec 8 agreed with Hao Mart that there was no non-compliance with leasing principles and dismissed the sub-tenants’ application.
In a letter to sub-tenants dated Dec 10, Hao Mart proposed a “without prejudice” meeting with all sub-tenants on Dec 17. This means the talks would be confidential and could not be used against a party in court if negotiations fail.
“Hao Mart is aware that a number of sub-tenants have submitted claims relating to (the) termination of their tenancy agreements. Without any admission of liability, we are reviewing the claims together with our solicitors.
“We would also like to discuss possible next steps in the legal process which may be more efficient for the sub-tenants, and save you time and costs,” it said.
Robson Lee, director of Legal Solutions LLC, said that the sub-tenants’ right to compensation will hinge on the terms of their tenancy agreement.
“I’ll be surprised if the individual sub-tenancy agreements do not contain clauses regarding termination and notice period. It all boils down to what their contract says vis-a-vis Hao Mart,” said Lee, who is not involved in the case.
He added that the sub-tenants should seek legal advice on their rights to pursue, for the premature termination of their lease.
Ongoing lawsuits
The latest updates come as the situation is getting increasingly fractious, with OG suing Hao Mart for allegedly breaching its lease agreement, by failing to pay rent from January to November 2024 – as well as subletting parts of Taste Orchard without seeking the landlord’s approval.
This adds to another lawsuit filed by the supermarket chain on Aug 29, against real estate agency PropNex Realty and its agent Michael Tan Ban Aik, for alleged misrepresentation in the leasing of Taste Orchard.
OG, in its statement of claim dated Oct 21, alleged that Hao Mart’s actions were a breach of the 7½-year lease it had originally signed in November 2021, which served as grounds for early termination.
The landlord is seeking to claim nearly S$6.6 million from Hao Mart – comprising S$5.6 million in principal arrears for rent, S$426,299 in increase in property tax, S$366,699 in principal arrears for charges, and S$178,857 in accrued interest so far.
Hao Mart stated in court papers that OG’s action is “misconceived” and has been superseded by both parties’ subsequent entry into an “oral agreement” – which it claimed the landlord has in turn breached.
In the earlier lawsuit filed against PropNex, Hao Mart is seeking S$3.5 million and other damages against the real estate firm, and its agent Michael Tan for false representations in the leasing of the Taste Orchard premises.
It accused Tan of falsely representing, both verbally and in the letter of intent, that he and Propnex would act in the best interests of the supermarket operator in the negotiation of the lease with the landlord, and Hao Mart would not need to seek legal or other professional advice.
Uncertain future for businesses
Sub-tenants told ST they are increasingly frustrated at the apparent lack of communication, and what they viewed as flip-flopping from Hao Mart’s representatives, as the dispute drags on with no concrete resolution in sight.
ST understands that the building’s management office run by Hao Mart had been closed since late October, and sub-tenants said its representatives were not responsive to their messages about the situation.
Hao Mart’s premium Eccellente supermarket, which had originally occupied three storeys when the mall opened, was completely vacated when ST visited in October.
The case has changed hands twice. Watershed Law was appointed as Hao Mart’s representatives on Oct 31, taking over from financial advisory firm Avista Advisory Partners, who were originally appointed on Sep 23.
According to sub-tenants, Avista had originally drafted a settlement agreement and met them via Zoom in October to discuss their claims, which included loss of business and unamortised renovation costs.
In an e-mail dated Oct 23 seen by ST, an option to extend the move-out date from Dec 31 to Mar 31, 2026, had also been granted to sub-tenants.
“We acknowledge and accept your decision to vacate Taste Orchard at 160 Orchard Road by Mar 31, 2026. Given this extension, we believe the notice period provided should be sufficient to facilitate your smooth transition.
“With regard to the one-month notice option, we are agreeable to allow you this option after Dec 31, 2025. This means that the one-month notice can be given by you at any time after Jan 1, 2026,” the firm said in the e-mail.
But this option appears to be up in the air after Avista handed over the case to Hao Mart’s legal representatives. Matters regarding compensation have also not been discussed between the law firm and sub-tenants.
Yong of Watershed Law told ST that both her firm and Vita Law were engaged by Hao Mart to act in the lawsuit commenced by OG on Oct 21, and subsequently instructed to act in respect of the sub-tenants’ matters.
At least one sub-tenant showed ST a text message from Nov 28, stating the possibility of extending the move-out date. “Hao Mart and I are waiting to hear whether extension to Mar 31, 2026, is ok,” the text message said.
According to court documents, Hao Mart claimed it had entered into an oral agreement with OG allowing for an extension of the move-out deadline to Mar 31 “at the latest, if additional time is required”.
“Hao Mart believes that it is OG which has changed its position on this issue. In the circumstances, the best course would be to deliver possession by Dec 31, 2025, without prejudice to other issues in the dispute between OG and Hao Mart,” said Yong.
In response to ST’s queries on the discrepancy surrounding the extension, OG said on Dec 9 that it is not participating in settlement discussions between Hao Mart and its sub-tenants.
“These discussions are being led by Hao Mart and its advisers, Avista, taking into consideration their respective legal and contractual obligations,” the landlord added.
While some sub-tenants are already making preparations to move out by the end of the year, others said the uncertainty surrounding their last day of operations at Taste Orchard has begun to hurt their business.
An owner of an education centre said that revenue had dropped around 80 per cent since news of the lease termination broke.
“Our customers typically buy a package for 50 to 100 hours of lessons, and the termination has led them to feel insecure, so they don’t want to buy until we have a concrete plan,” said the business owner.
ST understands businesses such as aesthetic clinics have been similarly hit. One told ST that it had signed a new lease at another property from February 2026, with the understanding that they would need to move out from Taste Orchard only by Mar 31.
The latest development means that the business would have to close for at least two months.
“We are more worried about our customers losing their confidence in us. Closing for two months might not sound like a big deal to most, but it can affect our reputation,” said the business owner.
Sequence of key events
Aug 29: Hao Mart files lawsuit against PropNex and its real estate agent Michael Tan Ban Aik, alleging misrepresentation in the leasing of the Taste Orchard mall.
Sep 12: Hao Mart informs sub-tenants of the termination of its lease by landlord OG, which also entails the eviction of all other businesses at Taste Orchard by Dec 31.
Sep 23: Hao Mart appoints Avista Advisory Partners to handle the sub-tenants’ matters. Avista meets sub-tenants in the following weeks to collect their claims submissions, and informs them of an extension of the move-out date to March 31, 2026.
Oct 21: OG files lawsuit against Hao Mart for breaching its lease agreement by failing to pay rent from January to November 2024, amounting to S$9.2 million. Hao Mart appoints Watershed Law and Vita Law as its legal representatives.
Oct 31: Sub-tenants are informed that Watershed Law has taken over from Avista. Watershed Law later also tells sub-tenants that the move-out date has reverted to Dec 31.
Nov 20: Watershed Law informs sub-tenants in an e-mail that it had not received any instruction on compensation from Hao Mart.
Dec 8: An application by sub-tenants to start a mediation process with Hao Mart is dismissed by the adjudicator at the Singapore Mediation Centre, citing no non-compliance with leasing principles.
Dec 10: Hao Mart proposes a “without prejudice” meeting with sub-tenants on Dec 17 to discuss “possible next steps in the legal process”. THE STRAITS TIMES
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.
