Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Jasmine Xu & 4 Ors

[2025] SGHC 86 High Court (General Division) 8 May 2025 • HC/OC 129/2022 • 55 min read
24 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Catchwords

Tort — Vicarious liability Contract — Misrepresentation Act Tort — Misrepresentation — Remedies Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation

Practice Areas

Tort Contract

Judges (1)

Mohamed Faizal Delivered

Counsel (6)

Fernandez LLC Firm RWong Law Corporation Firm Lee Yun En Counsel Plaintiff Mohamed Arshad bin Mohamed Tahir Counsel Plaintiff Patrick Fernandez Counsel Plaintiff Raymond Wong (Wang Xukuan) Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd Plaintiff ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd Defendant Xu Jasmine Defendant

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC 86 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 8 May 2025 concerning Contract and Tort, specifically addressing vicarious liability, misrepresentation act, and misrepresentation. The judgment was delivered by Mohamed Faizal. The case was brought by Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd (plaintiff) against ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Fernandez LLC and RWong Law Corporation. The judgment cites 24 cases and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Misrepresentation Act. This decision has been cited by 2 subsequent judgments in the dataset.

Summary

A beauty salon sued its property agent and ERA Realty for negligent misrepresentation after discovering that a condominium unit's actual floor area was significantly less than represented, due to the unit's unique double-volume ceiling design. The court dismissed the claim, finding that while the agent had a duty to verify unusual property characteristics, the salon had failed to prove that the agent's representations were false given the ambiguity in how floor area should be measured for such properties.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC 86?

[2025] SGHC 86 (Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Jasmine Xu & 4 Ors) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 8 May 2025 addressing Contract and Tort, specifically vicarious liability, misrepresentation act, and misrepresentation. The judgment was delivered by Mohamed Faizal.

Who were the parties in Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Jasmine Xu & 4 Ors?

The plaintiff in [2025] SGHC 86 was Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd, and the defendant was ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd, Xu Jasmine. Legal representation included Fernandez LLC and RWong Law Corporation. The case was decided on 8 May 2025 in the High Court (General Division).

Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 86?

[2025] SGHC 86 was delivered by Mohamed Faizal in the High Court (General Division) on 8 May 2025. The case concerned Contract and Tort.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 86 cite?

[2025] SGHC 86 cites 24 prior decisions. It references Misrepresentation Act. The decision has itself been cited by 2 subsequent judgments.

Statutes Cited

Misrepresentation Act
s 2 s 2(1) s 2(2)

Cases Cited (24)

SG (7)
[2014] SGHC 159 [2017] SGDC 75 [2017] SGHC 88 [2018] SGHC 123 [2021] SGHC 193 [2021] SGHC 84 [2023] SGHC 63
SLR (17)
[1998] 1 SLR(R) 457 [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 [2003] 2 SLR(R) 554 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 [2004] 2 SLR(R) 1 [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 [2010] 2 SLR 1154 [2013] 4 SLR 308 [2015] 1 SLR 997 [2017] 2 SLR 1074 [2020] 2 SLR 1256 [2020] 3 SLR 335 [2020] 5 SLR 304 [2021] 1 SLR 1288 [2024] 1 SLR 964 [2024] 5 SLR 51

Cited By (2)

[2025] SGHC 188
ASTRAWATI ALUWI v LO YEW SENG & Anor
[2025] SGHC 161
RICHARD CHEUNG TECK CHEONG & 15 Ors v LVND INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 86)