On May 8 this year, the High Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by beauty salon operator Crystal Beauty against property agent Jasmine Xu and her agency, ERA Realty Network. The salon had alleged that Xu and ERA misrepresented the size of a commercial unit the company purchased.

Crystal Beauty’s director, Madam Pan Ying, claimed she was misled into buying the unit under the impression that it was larger than it actually was. However, she discovered the discrepancy only after taking possession and commissioning renovation work, when measurements revealed the usable floor space was significantly smaller than expected due to unusual upward-sloping walls in the unit.

As a result, Mdm Pan said she was forced to continue operating from her original unit alongside the new one, rather than consolidating her business in a single space. Both units are located at D’Leedon condominium.

The salon sought S$591,255.38 in damages, citing fraudulent, negligent, and/or innocent misrepresentation. It also argued that ERA Realty Network was liable as Xu’s employer. The claimed amount included rental costs for the original unit and wages for four employees who continued working there.

Background of the Case

Crystal Beauty began operations at D’Leedon in 2019, where Xu was a customer. The two women became acquainted as their children attended the same kindergarten.

In September 2018, Mdm Pan expressed interest in purchasing the unit opposite her salon to expand the business. Her first attempt fell through due to financing issues. A second effort was made in January 2020, while the unit was still occupied by a clinic.

Following negotiations, the asking price was reduced from S$1.57 million to S$1.49 million (excluding GST). The clinic continued to occupy the premises until late 2021, even as the sale went through.

Throughout the process, Mdm Pan and Xu relied on information from property portals, as well as a title search, all of which listed the unit’s size as approximately 818 square feet.

However, in late 2021, an interior designer hired for renovation work measured the unit and found the actual usable space was just 619 square feet—only marginally more than the 603 square feet of the original unit. The shortfall was attributed to the unusual shape of the property, which featured upward-sloping walls.

As Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal explained in his ruling, the title documents and property listings reflected the ceiling area—818 square feet—not the floor area, which is typically the usable space. This configuration is rare and led to a misleading impression of the unit's size.

In contrast, Mdm Pan’s original unit had downward-sloping walls, resulting in a larger floor area relative to the ceiling. She argued that the reduced space in the new unit hindered her expansion plans, forcing her to eliminate one treatment room and a planned manicure/pedicure area, and requiring continued use of the original premises.

Crystal Beauty also brought claims against three other parties: the seller of the new unit, PLS Holdings; the seller's agent, Eric Kwek; and his agency, PropNex Realty. The case against PLS Holdings was dropped after the company was struck off, while Kwek and PropNex reached a confidential settlement with Crystal Beauty.

High Court’s Findings

To assess the responsibilities of property agents in such scenarios, the court appointed Adjunct Associate Professor Tay Kah Poh from the National University of Singapore’s Business School as a joint expert. 

Judicial Commissioner Faizal concluded that Xu had acted reasonably, performing the standard due diligence expected of an agent, including cross-referencing property data from multiple sources. Given the unusual shape of the unit, he questioned what more Xu could realistically have done.

“This case was a perfect storm of rare and unusual circumstances,” said the judge, adding that even the expert, Prof Tay, admitted to never encountering a similar situation.

There was no evidence that Xu knew the usable area was less than stated, nor that she made any false representations. The judge also criticized the damages sought by Crystal Beauty as "considerably inflated" and lacking clear proof of actual financial loss.

In his concluding remarks, Judicial Commissioner Faizal noted that the disparity between floor space and the listed strata size caught all parties by surprise. He said that in Singapore’s property market—characterized by transparency and consistency—such ambiguities are rare.

“Once in a while, a case arises that defies the norm. When it does, the responsibilities of property agents and agencies are put to the test,” he said. “But in this instance, there was little more a diligent agent could have done.”

Caveat Emptor

Buyers are advised to conduct property research and analysis before purchasing the unit. So that you pay for the recent transacted resale price based on the given floor area. The facing and frontage can affect the footfall of a commercial business.