Landlord caught attending online course during SCT trial ordered to pay costs
A landlord in a Small Claims Tribunal tenancy dispute was ordered to pay S$200 in costs after being caught attending an online course on his phone during the trial. The magistrate found his conduct, including lateness and use of unverified AI-generated arguments, unnecessarily protracted proceedings
SINGAPORE: A landlord in a routine tenancy dispute before the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) has been ordered to pay S$200 in costs to his former tenant after being caught attending an online course on his mobile phone during the trial. The magistrate, Tribunal Magistrate Leon Abraham Tan, published a judgment on Monday (Oct 19) detailing the landlord's conduct, which included lateness on both days of the video-conference trial and the use of generative artificial intelligence to form legal arguments he did not fully understand or verify.
The landlord had withheld the full S$6,000 security deposit from a foreign tenant who rented a one-bedroom apartment for two years from March 2024. He claimed the tenant caused 10 defects, including a chipped bathroom tile, three stained curtains and a cracked kitchen countertop. The tenant sought S$6,450, comprising a full refund of the deposit and S$450 for air-conditioning costs. The tribunal found the landlord proved entitlement to deduct about S$4,565 for three defects: the cracked kitchen countertop, unevenly painted walls and defects to television accessories. The magistrate allowed S$350 of the tenant's claim for air-conditioning repairs but rejected S$100 for coolant gas top-ups. The landlord also had to pay his former tenant S$1,785 from the deposit.
Mr Tan said the case was a "run-of-the-mill tenancy dispute" that would not have called for a grounds of decision had the landlord not conducted himself as he did over the two-day trial. The landlord was late on both days, made three attempts to relitigate a procedural matter already decided, and admitted his submissions were produced by generative AI without full understanding or verification. "Worse still, he was caught attending an online course on his mobile phone while the trial was in progress," said Mr Tan.
The landlord had applied to change the second day of trial to attend an online course conducted by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC). The court rejected the application as the trial date was fixed after the landlord confirmed his availability, and he did not obtain the tenant's consent to a postponement. At around 10.46 am on the second day, Mr Tan heard a soft background sound resembling someone else speaking. When asked, the landlord admitted he was attending the course on his mobile phone. The magistrate called the behaviour "absolutely unacceptable" and rejected the landlord's claim that he had only logged on for attendance and that the course presentation appeared by accident. "A person does not find himself in a Zoom meeting by accident," said Mr Tan.
Mr Tan said the landlord's conduct went beyond discourtesy and showed he was content to give the trial only part of his attention, unfairly burdening proceedings. He awarded the S$200 costs to compensate the claimant, but stressed the modest sum should not be taken as a benchmark or ceiling for such conduct. The judgment follows a similar order in June against a maid agency for the behaviour of its representative during an SCT trial.
