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

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (6)

Parties (3)

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.

[2025] SGHC 86 explained

Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Jasmine Xu & 4 Ors ([2025] SGHC 86) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 8 May 2025. It is categorised under Tort and Contract. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2025] SGHC 86 about?

Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Jasmine Xu & 4 Ors ([2025] SGHC 86) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Vicarious liability”, “Contract — Misrepresentation Act”, “Tort — Misrepresentation — Remedies”, and “Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 86 consider?

The judgment refers to Misrepresentation Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2025] SGHC 86?

Within this corpus, [2025] SGHC 86 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

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 Cases on this 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)

Referenced in

Statutes interpreted in this judgment

Legal concepts & references

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 86)