OG sues Hao Mart for alleged breach of Taste Orchard lease, seeks to claim S$6.6 million in rent and other fees
Source: Business Times
Article Date: 09 Dec 2025
Author: Paige Lim
Hao Mart denies these allegations and says that both parties had subsequently entered into a separate ‘oral agreement’, which OG in turn breached.
OG has sued supermarket operator Hao Mart for allegedly breaching its lease agreement over Taste Orchard by failing to pay rent from January to November 2024, as well as subletting parts of the premises without seeking its approval.
As Taste Orchard’s landlord, OG claimed Hao Mart’s actions were a breach of the 7.5-year lease it had signed and thus served as grounds for termination.
As at Oct 1, OG 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.
In addition, it is seeking to claim mesne profits until Taste Orchard’s premises are handed over; subsequent interest on the outstanding sum; as well as other damages to be assessed.
Taste Orchard, formerly known as OG Orchard Point, opened in February 2024 as a food-focused mall spanning more than 150,000 square feet.
OG had originally leased all five levels of the mall to master tenant Hao Mart for 7.5 years, of which three floors were occupied by the latter’s supermarket Eccellente. However, it terminated the lease after less than two years, requiring Hao Mart and its sub-tenants to vacate and surrender the premises by end-December.
OG’s lawsuit comes shortly after Hao Mart sued PropNex Realty and its agent, Michael Tan Ban Aik, for alleged misrepresentation in the leasing of Taste Orchard.
In that case, Hao Mart is seeking to claim almost S$3.5 million in losses, comprising five months of rent. It said that it had to pay this rental despite not being able to operate due to project delays, which it attributed to Tan’s misrepresentation.
OG’s allegations
In a statement of claim dated Oct 21, 2025, OG alleges that Hao Mart had failed to pay rent for the period of Jan 17, 2024 to Nov 1, 2024, amounting to a sum of S$9.2 million.
OG is represented by Dentons Rodyk’s Koh Kia Jeng and Astrid Teo.
It claimed that despite making further demands for payment on four separate occasions – Jul 19, Aug 7, Aug 21 and Oct 10 – in 2024, Hao Mart had “failed, refused or neglected” to pay rent and other charges due.
This is with the exception of S$10.3 million – which OG received from Hao Mart around Dec 23, 2024 – and S$2.2 million, which OG received from United Overseas Bank on Jun 11, 2025, after issuing a demand to the bank under a letter of guarantee.
Both of these sums were supposedly payment for damages, given OG’s termination of the lease agreement.
Secondly, OG alleged that Hao Mart breached the lease agreement by subletting or parting possession with “parts of the premises” without obtaining its prior written consent.
It said that it had learnt “sometime in August 2024” that Hao Mart had entered into various tenancy agreements with other third parties.
OG claimed that Hao Mart did not remedy its unauthorised subletting of the premises, even after its solicitors had demanded for this on Aug 21, 2024 and Oct 10, 2024.
As a result of these breaches, OG said that it notified Hao Mart – by letters dated Nov 18, 2024 – that it would be exercising its right of re-entry and accordingly, ending the lease agreement.
It added that Hao Mart was given six weeks to vacate and surrender the premises no later than Dec 30, 2024, on top of reinstatement.
However, OG stated that to date, Hao Mart has “failed, refused or neglected” to return the premises and remains “wrongfully in possession” of it.
OG said that on Oct 21, 2025, it had issued a letter to Hao Mart informing the operator of the outstanding sum of S$6.6 million as at Oct 1.
On top of this, OG is seeking to claim interest of 12 per cent per annum, calculated daily, and mesne profits – or double the rent – from Hao Mart until the premises are handed over. It said that the latter is in accordance with a clause in the lease agreement commencing from Oct 21, 2025.
Furthermore, OG alleged that it has suffered “damages, loss and expense” arising from or connected with these breaches and lease termination.
It stated that it “expressly reserves all rights to claim for any further losses, damages, costs or other reliefs” arising from or connected to the lease agreement – including its termination – against Hao Mart, whether in these proceedings or by commencing separate proceedings.
At the time of filing this statement of claim, OG said that it is “unable to quantify” the losses relating to procuring a replacement tenant for Taste Orchard.
Hao Mart denies claims, said OG’s action is “misconceived”
In a defence and counterclaim filed on Nov 19, 2025, Hao Mart denied OG’s claims, including its purported failure to pay rent for the period Jan 17, 2024 to Nov 1, 2024.
The defendant is represented by Vita Law’s Sean Francois La’Brooy and assisted by Watershed Law’s Christian Teo and Esther Yong.
Hao Mart stated that OG’s action is “misconceived” and has been superseded by both parties’ subsequent entry into an “oral agreement” – which OG has in turn breached.
Following the claimant’s notice that it would retake possession of Taste Orchard’s premises, Hao Mart said both parties held a meeting at OG’s office on Jan 20, 2025, to negotiate.
Those present at the meeting included Hazel Tay, a director and shareholder at OG; her husband Adam Emilianou; as well as Hao Mart director Tan Kim Yong.
According to Hao Mart, both parties had discussed whether to negotiate and enter into a new lease.
On its part, it had faced “significant difficulties” during the lease period, in seeking to comply with and obtain necessary regulatory approvals and had incurred “heavy” capital expenditure.
Ultimately, the defendant claimed both parties “finally decided that there would not be a new lease” and would instead enter into an oral agreement, which happened “around March 2025”.
Under the terms of this oral agreement, Hao Mart said that OG would not claim mesne profits or doubled rent from January 2025 onwards.
Second, OG was supposed to give Hao Mart “reasonable time” for the facility agreement to be repaid and that it had agreed to allow the mortgage to be redeemed.
OG, as the lender, had previously entered into a facility agreement with Dr Tan, the borrower, for a sum of S$66.2 million. Under the arrangement, a mortgage instrument was registered over two properties jointly and severally owned by Dr Tan and his wife Teo Siew Ling.
However, Hao Mart claimed OG “held its hands on the matter” from giving the notice of re-entry on Nov 18, 2024, to commencing legal action on Oct 21, 2025, which was a period of more than nine months.
Third, as part of the agreement, Hao Mart would return the premises to OG by Dec 31, 2025, “by terminating and providing reasonable notice period” to existing subtenants or if additional time was required, by Mar 31, 2026, at the latest.
To that end, Hao Mart said that OG would not claim damages in lieu of rent from April 2025 to December 2025.
Fourth, Hao Mart said that OG had allegedly requested “forbearance” from the defendant in not commencing legal action against it with regard to the PropNex case. Hao Mart said that it had acceded on its part.
Fifth, Hao Mart said that OG would share costs with the defendant with regard to the termination of the subtenancies, with the sum to be agreed upon.
This was allegedly also on the basis that OG “would be getting a new master tenant and benefit from delivery of vacant possession of the premises earlier” by Dec 31, 2025, or at the latest, Mar 31, 2026.
Sixth, Hao Mart said that OG would compensate the defendant – with the sum to be agreed upon – for the capital expenditure and expenses it had incurred during the lease period.
This compensation, it said, also bears in mind “the misrepresentations made by Michael Tan and PropNex” who were OG’s agents at the material time, as well as the extensions of time Hao Mart had required in the lease agreement which OG had agreed to.
OG’s action “premature” and “wrongful”
In its defence, Hao Mart denied OG’s allegation that it had not paid the outstanding rent and other charges, which amounted to S$9.3 million.
It pointed out that the claimant had acknowledged that it had received a larger sum of S$10.3 million, and would refer to the terms of the oral agreement.
On OG’s accusations of subletting without seeking its approval, Hao Mart argued that the claimant “knew or ought to have known” of the subtenants and subtenancies as it “maintained an office” on Taste Orchard’s fifth floor.
Subtenants “had to apply directly to the claimant” for season parking, it said. As such, Hao Mart asserted that OG had “acquiesced to the subtenants” and by this conduct, is precluded from making claims with regard to the subtenancies.
The defendant also argued that it is permitted to grant concession space and licences to third-party food and beverage and lifestyle retail stores without seeking OG’s approval, as these are “approved industries” under the lease agreement.
Responding to OG’s claim that it is “unable to quantify” the losses arising from having to procure a replacement tenant for the premises, Hao Mart stated that OG had shared that there was, in fact, a replacement tenant “who would be signing a new lease agreement”.
That was why OG had requested the premises to be handed over by Dec 31, 2025, or Mar 31, 2026, at the latest, it added.
Furthermore, Hao Mart denied that OG is entitled to any reliefs it has demanded.
It said that OG’s action is “premature” and “wrongful” since the claimant had agreed the premises could be handed over by Dec 31, 2025, and that this deadline had not yet expired when OG commenced legal proceedings against it.
OG has since filed its own reply and defence to Hao Mart, denying “each and every allegation” in the latter’s defence and counterclaim.
Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
0