The collapse of Taste Orchard is no longer simply a story about an unsuccessful retail concept.
It has become a complicated network of lawsuits involving landlord OG, former master tenant Hao Mart, Hao Mart-linked companies, sub-tenants, a property agency, and other parties. Each dispute raises different legal questions, but they all appear to originate from the same underlying arrangement: one company leased an entire commercial property and subsequently brought numerous businesses into it as sub-tenants.
The latest development involves Hao Open Foods, a company owned by Hao Mart chairman Dr Tan Kim Yong. Hao Open Foods operated Yole and Killiney outlets at Taste Orchard and is suing OG over what it alleges was its premature removal from the property.
OG has rejected the claims. In its defence, it reportedly described the lawsuit as legally baseless and an “abuse of process”, arguing that Hao Open Foods should pursue any contractual claim against Hao Mart—the party with which it entered into its sub-tenancy agreements—rather than OG.
The court has not determined the merits of these allegations. Nevertheless, the dispute already offers important lessons for landlords, master tenants, sub-tenants, property agents and business owners entering commercial leases in Singapore.
How Taste Orchard’s Commercial Structure Worked
Taste Orchard occupied the former OG Orchard Point building at 160 Orchard Road.
After OG closed its department store there in October 2022, Hao Mart took on the five retail floors as master tenant under a lease reportedly intended to run for seven and a half years. The building reopened as Taste Orchard in February 2024.
Hao Mart’s premium supermarket brand, Eccellente, occupied a substantial part of the development, while other spaces were sublet to food and beverage operators, education centres, beauty businesses and other retailers.
The structure can be simplified as follows:
OG → Hao Mart → Individual sub-tenants
This distinction is crucial.
OG was the landlord, and Hao Mart was OG’s direct tenant. Most businesses operating within Taste Orchard did not necessarily have leases directly with OG. Their agreements were with Hao Mart, which functioned as both the master tenant and operator of the overall concept.
This meant that the continued occupation of the sub-tenants was ultimately dependent on the survival of Hao Mart’s head lease with OG.
When OG terminated the master lease in September 2025, the consequences moved down the entire contractual chain. Hao Mart and its sub-tenants were subsequently required to leave the property.
Taste Orchard’s businesses were told to return their units by the end of December 2025, even though some reportedly had years remaining on their sub-tenancies. The High Court later granted OG possession of the property under a consent order, without Hao Mart admitting liability and without resolving the parties’ remaining claims.
What Caused the Head Lease to Break Down?
OG has alleged that Hao Mart breached its lease through rental arrears and the unauthorised subletting of parts of the property.
According to earlier court reporting, OG sought approximately S$6.6 million, comprising rental arrears, property tax increases, service charges, and interest, as at October 2025. Hao Mart denied OG’s allegations and claimed that the parties had subsequently reached an oral agreement which OG breached.
The court has not yet finally determined those positions.
Commercially significant is the extent of the financial relationship that developed between the two parties.
In a separate dispute, OG said it had extended a S$66.2 million short-term credit facility to Dr Tan after it was informed of Hao Mart’s financial and borrowing difficulties. The loan was reportedly secured by a mortgage over a Good Class Bungalow in Jervois Hill.
According to OG’s defence in that separate case, approximately S$66.8 million had become due by August 2024, increasing to around S$73.5 million by October 2025. Hao Mart, Dr Tan and his wife have made their own allegations concerning the loan, an alleged oral agreement and OG’s enforcement actions. OG denies those allegations, and the matter remains before the High Court. CNA reported the competing claims in March 2026.
This is what makes the Taste Orchard case more than an ordinary landlord-and-tenant disagreement.
The landlord was allegedly exposed not only to unpaid lease obligations, but also to a major credit facility connected to the tenant’s controlling shareholder. The commercial lease, the tenant’s liquidity problems, the secured loan and the mortgage enforcement process became interrelated.
The Latest Dispute: Hao Open Foods Versus OG
Hao Open Foods reportedly entered into two tenancy agreements with Hao Mart in November 2023 for spaces operating under the Yole and Killiney brands. The agreements were said to run from December 2023 until November 2026.
The company alleges that OG knew about, approved or consented to the sub-tenancies and allowed it to occupy and operate from the property. It is seeking damages for alleged misrepresentation, negligence, wrongful interference with trade and inducing breaches of contract.
OG disputes these allegations.
Its reported position is that the mere presence of businesses in the building did not mean it had legally approved their sub-tenancies. OG also argues that issuing season parking permits did not amount to consent to a subletting arrangement.
More fundamentally, OG reportedly says it had no contract with Hao Open Foods and was not a party to Hao Open Foods’ agreements with Hao Mart. On that basis, it argues that Hao Open Foods should seek any contractual remedy from Hao Mart.
That is likely to become one of the central issues in the dispute: can a sub-tenant establish a direct legal claim against a head landlord when its tenancy agreement was entered into with the master tenant?
The answer will depend on the documents, communications, representations and conduct of the parties. Knowledge that a business is physically operating inside a building may not necessarily be the same as formal consent to a legally binding sub-tenancy.
Similarly, facilitating ordinary building operations—such as providing access or season parking—does not automatically prove that the landlord agreed to assume contractual responsibility for the sub-tenant.
Knowledge, Consent and Contractual Liability Are Different Things
One of the most important lessons from the case is that several ideas commonly treated as interchangeable are legally and commercially different:
- A landlord may know that an occupier is present.
- A landlord may tolerate or facilitate that occupation.
- A landlord may formally consent to the master tenant granting a sublease.
- A landlord may enter into a direct contractual relationship with the sub-tenant.
These are not necessarily the same.
A retailer may reasonably believe that the head landlord must have approved its presence because the outlet is visible, operates openly and has access to the building’s facilities. From a business owner’s perspective, it may seem improbable that a prominent outlet could operate for months without the landlord knowing.
However, knowledge alone may not create contractual rights.
This is why formal landlord consent should be documented. A sub-tenant should ideally obtain written confirmation identifying the approved company, premises, permitted use and tenancy period. It should not rely solely on what the master tenant or leasing representative says the landlord knows.
The Greatest Risk Faced by a Sub-Tenant Is Often Outside Its Control
A sub-tenant can pay every month’s rent on time, comply with every operational rule and still lose its premises if the master tenant defaults under the head lease.
That is the structural weakness of subleasing.
The sub-tenant may only have a contract with the master tenant. If the head lease ends, the sublease may also become incapable of continuing—unless the landlord agrees to recognise the sub-tenant or enter into a new direct lease.
The businesses at Taste Orchard demonstrate how serious this risk can be.
CNA reported that some tenants still had at least two years remaining on their agreements when they were told to vacate. Huicai Education reportedly spent more than S$1 million renovating its premises, while another operator said it had invested approximately S$390,000 in renovation, equipment and inventory.
These businesses were not merely losing a location. They potentially faced:
- Unrecovered renovation expenditure
- Reinstatement and dismantling costs
- Relocation expenses
- Higher rent at replacement premises
- Operational downtime
- Lost sales and customer confidence
- Disruption to employees, students or members
- Potential refunds for prepaid packages
- Legal expenses incurred in pursuing compensation
This explains why a short notice period can be commercially devastating, even when the sub-tenant has done nothing wrong.
Lesson One: Verify the Head Lease Before Signing a Sublease
A prospective sub-tenant should not assess only its own rental rate and tenancy agreement.
It should also ask to see the relevant provisions of the master lease or obtain written confirmation covering several matters:
- Does the head lease permit subletting?
- Has the landlord provided written consent for this specific sub-tenancy?
- When does the head lease expire?
- Does the proposed sublease extend beyond the head lease?
- What happens to the sublease if the head lease is terminated early?
- Is the master tenant currently in default?
- Does the landlord have the right to require all sub-tenants to vacate immediately following termination?
A sublease should never offer a longer or more secure right of occupation than the master tenant is legally able to provide.
Lesson Two: Seek a Non-Disturbance or Recognition Arrangement
Where a business is committing substantial capital to renovation, it should consider asking for a direct agreement with the head landlord.
Such an arrangement could state that, if the head lease is terminated for reasons unrelated to the sub-tenant, the landlord may allow the sub-tenant to remain—provided it continues paying rent and complying with the relevant conditions.
The landlord may not agree. It may want the freedom to recover the entire property instead of inheriting fragmented leases negotiated by the master tenant.
Nevertheless, asking the question exposes the risk before the renovation money is spent.
If no protection is available, the sub-tenant should price that risk into its investment. A business should be cautious about spending S$1 million on a location when its right to occupy the space can disappear because of another company’s default.
Lesson Three: Written Agreements Matter More During Financial Distress
Several disputes surrounding Taste Orchard involve alleged oral representations or oral agreements.
Commercial relationships often develop informally. Parties may make accommodations, extend deadlines or discuss solutions without documenting every detail immediately.
That approach becomes dangerous when the financial relationship deteriorates.
If a landlord agrees to defer rent, extend a repayment period, permit subletting or refrain temporarily from enforcing security, the agreement should be recorded in writing. The document should specify:
- The amount involved
- The revised deadline
- Whether interest continues to accrue
- Whether existing defaults are waived
- Whether enforcement rights are suspended
- How long the accommodation lasts
- What event allows enforcement to resume
- Whether the arrangement varies the original contract
A general assurance to “give more time” can be understood very differently by each party.
Lesson Four: A Master Tenant Is Effectively Operating a Leveraged Property Business
A master tenant taking over an entire commercial building is not simply another retailer.
It is assuming something closer to an operating and leasing platform. It becomes responsible for paying the landlord while collecting rent from sub-tenants, managing the tenant mix, driving footfall, maintaining occupancy and absorbing the difference between its fixed obligations and its operating income.
That model can work well when:
- The head rent is commercially sustainable
- Sub-tenants are secured early
- Occupancy remains high
- Rental collections are reliable
- The anchor operation generates footfall
- Renovation and financing costs remain controlled
- The master tenant retains adequate cash reserves
But the model contains considerable operating leverage.
The head rent remains payable even when portions of the building are vacant or underperforming. If the anchor business struggles, footfall may decline and sub-tenants may face weaker sales. If sub-tenants leave, rental income falls while the master tenant’s obligation to the landlord remains.
This can become a negative cycle:
Cash-flow pressure → weaker operations → declining footfall → tenant exits → lower rental income → deeper cash-flow pressure
A prestigious Orchard Road address does not remove this risk. In fact, the capital required to fit out and operate a multi-storey retail concept may make the consequences larger.
Lesson Five: Landlords Must Monitor More Than Rental Payments
The case also contains lessons for landlords.
Leasing an entire building to a single master tenant may simplify property management and transfer leasing risk away from the owner. However, it also concentrates exposure in one counterparty.
If the master tenant fails, the landlord may suddenly inherit:
- A largely vacant building
- Numerous displaced sub-tenants
- Reputational pressure
- Unclear approvals and occupation arrangements
- Reinstatement issues
- Outstanding payments
- Multiple lawsuits
- A lengthy re-leasing process
A landlord should therefore monitor the master tenant’s financial strength, subleasing activity, tenant roster, arrears position and compliance with consent requirements throughout the lease—not only at the beginning.
If the business model depends heavily on subletting, the lease should establish a clear approval process and maintain an updated schedule of authorised occupiers.
Lesson Six: Property Agents Must Define the Limits of Their Representations
Hao Mart has separately sued PropNex Realty and one of its agents over alleged misrepresentation connected with the leasing of Taste Orchard. Those allegations have not been adjudicated.
The wider lesson is that agents involved in complex commercial leases should be precise about whether they are communicating:
- A confirmed instruction from the landlord
- Their interpretation of a lease
- A commercial opinion
- A proposal still awaiting approval
- A representation made by another party
Questions involving subletting, lease commencement, rent-free periods and landlord approval should be answered using clear written records.
An agent should not allow an informal message to be interpreted as a binding landlord commitment when the agent does not have the authority to give one.
What the Case Does Not Yet Prove
It would be premature to conclude that any party has established its allegations simply because a lawsuit or defence has been filed.
At this stage:
- OG’s claims concerning arrears and unauthorised subletting remain disputed.
- Hao Mart’s allegations concerning oral agreements and wrongful conduct remain disputed.
- Hao Open Foods’ claims against OG remain disputed.
- OG’s assertion that the Hao Open Foods action is an abuse of process is its legal position, not yet a judicial finding.
- Consent orders concerning possession do not necessarily determine liability for all the remaining financial and contractual claims.
This distinction is essential when analysing active litigation. Court filings tell us what each party argues; they do not by themselves tell us which version the court will ultimately accept.
The Broader Lesson: Commercial Occupation Is Only as Secure as the Contractual Chain
The Taste Orchard fallout demonstrates that a successful-looking retail environment can rest on a fragile contractual structure.
Customers may see a mall filled with established brands. Sub-tenants may see a multi-year lease and a major Orchard Road location. But behind those appearances, their security of tenure can depend on a single master tenant continuing to perform a much larger head lease.
For business owners, the lesson is not to avoid every sublease. Subleasing can provide access to attractive locations, lower entry costs and a curated retail ecosystem.
The lesson is to understand precisely where the risks sit.
Before spending heavily on renovation, a sub-tenant should determine whether the landlord has formally approved its occupation, what happens if the master lease ends, and who is financially responsible if the business is forced to leave early.
For landlords, the case shows that transferring leasing responsibility to a master tenant does not eliminate property risk. It changes the form of that risk and concentrates it in the financial strength, governance and contractual discipline of one counterparty.
For master tenants, it is a reminder that taking control of an entire building requires far more than a compelling retail concept. It requires durable cash flow, disciplined documentation, transparent communication and sufficient capital to withstand a slower-than-expected ramp-up.
Taste Orchard opened with the ambition of giving an ageing Orchard Road building a new identity. Less than two years later, the concept had closed, and its contractual relationships had fractured into multiple legal proceedings.
Whatever the courts eventually decide, the commercial lesson is already clear: in a master-lease structure, every party must understand not only its own agreement, but also the agreement sitting above it. When that upper layer fails, the consequences can travel through the entire property faster—and more severely—than many occupiers expect.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly reported court filings and media reports available at the time of writing. Allegations made by the respective parties have not necessarily been proven or determined by the court. The article is intended for general information and commercial analysis only and does not constitute legal, financial or investment advice. Businesses entering or affected by commercial leases should obtain advice from a qualified Singapore lawyer based on their specific agreements and circumstances.
Article contributed by Jerry Wong.
Jerry Wong is a realtor at Propnex Realty, bringing a rich background in interior and lighting design to his work. He loves exploring diverse spaces and observing the transformative power of real estate. Beyond his professional role, Jerry finds his greatest fulfillment in connecting people with the right properties, gaining immense satisfaction from helping clients achieve their dreams.
