A landlord in Singapore has been ordered to pay S$200 (about US$156) in costs to a former tenant after he was found attending an online course on his phone while a tenancy dispute hearing was underway, CNA reports.
The case, decided by the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT), was published as a grounds of decision on Monday (Oct 19). Tribunal Magistrate Leon Abraham Tan said the underlying dispute was ordinary, but the landlord's behaviour across two days of video-conference hearings warranted a written ruling.
According to CNA, the tenant was a foreigner who rented a one-bedroom flat from the landlord for two years from March 2024. When the lease ended, the landlord kept the entire S$6,000 security deposit, equal to two months' rent, and filed a counterclaim for a further S$473.83.
Why it matters
The tenant asked for S$6,450 — the full deposit plus S$450 for air-conditioning costs — and contested all ten defects the landlord listed. Among them were a chipped bathroom tile, which the landlord said cost S$320 to replace, three stained curtains at S$520, a cracked kitchen countertop and a stained sofa cover.
What the tribunal decided on the money
The magistrate found the landlord had established a right to deduct about S$4,565 for three of the ten defects: the cracked kitchen countertop, unevenly painted walls, and problems with accessories supplied with a television set. The other seven claims did not succeed.
The tenant was awarded S$350 for air-conditioning repairs, which the tribunal found were the landlord's responsibility. A separate S$100 claim for coolant gas top-ups was refused because the tenant was responsible for that work during the tenancy.
Mr Tan wrote that had the matter ended there, no written reasons would have been needed. What made the case notable, he said, was how the landlord behaved during the hearings.
Late on both days and an uninvited voice on the line
According to the judgment, the landlord arrived late on each of the two trial days and tried three times to reopen a procedural point that had already been settled. His written submissions, the magistrate found, were produced with generative AI, and the landlord conceded he did not fully grasp them and had not verified their contents.
The most serious issue came on the second day. At about 10.46am, Mr Tan heard a quiet background voice that sounded like another person speaking in the same room as the landlord. Asked where it came from, the landlord admitted he was following the course on his mobile phone at the same time as the hearing.
The magistrate told him the behaviour was unacceptable and instructed him to stop. The landlord then said he had only logged in earlier so his attendance would be recorded and had logged out, but that the presentation had somehow reappeared on his phone. Mr Tan rejected that account as plainly untrue, noting the course ran on Zoom with a unique meeting number and password — meaning the landlord must have deliberately rejoined for the presenter's voice to be audible at all.
CNA reports that the landlord had earlier asked to move the second day of the hearing so he could attend a course run by the National Trades Union Congress. The court refused because the date had been set after he confirmed he was free, he already knew about the course, and he had not obtained the tenant's agreement to a postponement.
The combined effect of the lateness, the repeated procedural attempts, the unverified AI submissions and the course attendance disrupted proceedings and stretched the hearing out longer than necessary, the magistrate said. Parties in SCT cases are anonymised because matters are heard in private.
The S$200 costs order is to be paid to the former tenant. The tribunal's written ruling now stands as a public signal that similar conduct in future SCT hearings is likely to draw a costs penalty.
