SINGAPORE: What was a routine tenancy dispute before a Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) resulted in a landlord having to pay S$200 (US$156) in costs to his ex-tenant after he was caught attending a course online during the trial.
He had also used generative artificial intelligence to form legal arguments he did not fully understand or verify.
Additionally, he was late on both days of the trial, which was conducted via video conference.
As a result of his conduct, proceedings were disrupted, and the trial was "unnecessarily protracted", according to a judgment published on Monday (Oct 19).
On top of costs, the landlord had to pay his former tenant S$1,785.
This was part of a S$6,000 security deposit he had withheld because he claimed the tenant caused a list of defects.
THE CASE
Parties were anonymised in the judgment. This is normal for SCT cases, where matters are heard in private.
The claimant was a foreigner who rented a one-bedroom apartment from the landlord for two years from March 2024.
At the end of the lease, the landlord withheld the full S$6,000 security deposit, comprising two months' rent. He also claimed another S$473.83 in a counterclaim.
The tenant sought S$6,450, comprising a full refund of the security deposit and S$450 as compensation for costs he had incurred in relation to the unit's air-conditioning. He disputed each of the 10 defects alleged by the landlord.
These included a chipped bathroom tile, which the landlord said cost him S$320 to replace, three stained curtains that incurred a cost of S$520 to replace, a cracked kitchen countertop and a stained sofa cover.
Of the 10 defects, the tribunal found that the landlord had proved his entitlement to deduct about S$4,565 for three defects.
These were the cracked kitchen countertop, unevenly painted walls and defects to accessories that came with a television set.
The magistrate allowed S$350 of the tenant's claim for repairs he had made to the air-conditioning, as the landlord was liable for such repairs.
However, he rejected the tenant's claim of S$100 for coolant gas top-ups, as the tenant was liable for such work during his lease.
Tribunal Magistrate Leon Abraham Tan said this was a "run-of-the-mill tenancy dispute, and had matters rested there it would not have called for a grounds of decision".
"What made the case worth reporting was the manner in which the (landlord) conducted himself over two days of trial," said Mr Tan.
He said the landlord was late on each of the trial's two days and made three attempts to relitigate a procedural matter that had already been decided.
His submissions were produced by generative artificial intelligence, and he admitted that he did not completely understand them and had not verified them, said Mr Tan.
"Worse still, he was caught attending an online course on his mobile phone while the trial was in progress. Taken together, that conduct led me to award costs against him. I publish this grounds of decision so that there is no doubt that the SCT will not condone conduct of this kind."
Mr Tan said the landlord had applied to change the date of the second day of trial so he could attend an online course conducted by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
THE ONLINE COURSE
The court rejected this application as the trial date had been fixed after the landlord confirmed his availability.
At the time, he already knew about the course taking place that day. The landlord also did not obtain the tenant's consent to the postponement.
"Returning to the second day of trial, at around 10.46 am, I heard for the first time a soft background sound that resembled someone else speaking in the same room as the (landlord)," said Mr Tan.
"When I asked where that sound came from, the (landlord) candidly admitted that he was attending the course on his mobile phone at the same time as the trial."
The magistrate told the landlord that this behaviour was "absolutely unacceptable" and asked him to stop.
The landlord claimed that he had only logged on earlier to have his attendance recorded and logged off, but that the course presentation had somehow appeared on his phone.
The magistrate rejected this "flimsy explanation", finding it "patently false". The course was conducted over Zoom with a unique meeting number and password.
"A person does not find himself in a Zoom meeting by accident," said Mr Tan.
"For the presenter's voice to have been heard at all, the (landlord) must have taken the deliberate step of joining the meeting."
Mr Tan said the landlord's conduct went beyond the "discourtesy of attempting to do two things at once".
"Attending trial by video conference is a convenience extended to litigants. It is not an entitlement that may be insisted upon," he said.
He said the landlord was content to give the trial "only a part of his attention".
"That was the measure of how lightly he treated these proceedings," said Mr Tan.
He said the landlord's conduct had "unfairly burdened" the proceedings, and it was only just and reasonable that the claimant be compensated with costs.
Mr Tan said the modest sum of S$200 should not be taken as a benchmark or ceiling for costs ordered against litigants who conduct themselves this way.
In June, Mr Tan had ordered costs against a maid agency in another SCT case for the behaviour of its representative during the trial.