Landlord in tenancy dispute caught attending online course during trial ordered to pay costs

During the trial, the magistrate heard a sound that revealed the landlord was attending the course on his phone.

The dispute was a run-of-the-mill tenancy dispute with the landlord withholding a security deposit because of alleged defects. (Photo: iStock)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

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.

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 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.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

庭审期间，法官听到一声响动，表明房东正在用手机参加课程。

这是一起普通的租房纠纷，房东以房屋存在所谓缺陷为由扣留了押金。（图片：iStock）

这段音频由人工智能工具生成。

新加坡：一起普通的租房纠纷在小额索偿法庭 (SCT) 审理，结果房东因在庭审期间参加在线课程而被查出，不得不向前租客支付 200 新元（156 美元）的诉讼费。

他还利用生成式人工智能来构建他并不完全理解或验证的法律论点。

此外，在通过视频会议进行的审判中，他两天都迟到了。

根据周一（10 月 19 日）公布的判决，由于他的行为，诉讼程序受到干扰，审判“不必要地被拖延了”。

除了各种费用之外，房东还不得不向前租客支付 1785 新元。

这是他扣留的 6000 新元押金的一部分，因为他声称租户造成了一系列缺陷。

判决书中对各方当事人进行了匿名处理。这在SCT案件中是惯例，因为此类案件的审理都是秘密进行的。

索赔人是一名外国人，从 2024 年 3 月起向房东租了一套一居室公寓，租期两年。

租约到期后，房东扣留了全部6000新元的押金，相当于两个月的租金。他还提起反诉，要求房东再支付473.83新元。

租户索赔6450新元，其中包括全额退还押金和450新元作为其因房屋空调维修而产生的费用补偿。他对房东提出的10项缺陷均提出异议。

其中包括一块破损的浴室瓷砖（房东称更换费用为 320 新元）、三幅沾有污渍的窗帘（更换费用为 520 新元）、一块破裂的厨房台面和一件沾有污渍的沙发套。

仲裁庭认定，在10项缺陷中，房东已证明其有权就其中三项缺陷扣除约4565新元。

这些缺陷包括厨房台面开裂、墙壁油漆不均匀以及电视机配件的瑕疵。

地方法官批准了租户提出的350新元的空调维修索赔，因为房东有责任承担此类维修费用。

然而，他驳回了租户提出的 100 新元制冷剂加注费用的索赔，因为租户在租赁期间有责任进行此类工作。

审裁处法官 Leon Abraham Tan 表示，这是一起“普通的租赁纠纷，如果事情到此为止，就不需要做出裁决理由”。

“这起案件值得报道的地方在于（房东）在两天的庭审中的表现，”谭先生说。

他说，房东在审判的两天里每天都迟到，并且三次试图重新审理一个已经裁决的程序性问题。

谭先生说，他提交的内容是由人工智能生成的，他承认自己并没有完全理解这些内容，也没有核实过。

“更糟糕的是，庭审进行期间，他被发现用手机参加在线课程。综上所述，这些行为导致我判令他承担诉讼费用。我公布这一判决理由，是为了明确表明特别法庭绝不容忍此类行为。”

陈先生表示，房东已申请更改第二天庭审的日期，以便参加由全国职工总会（NTUC）举办的在线课程。

法院驳回了这项申请，因为房东确认有空后，审判日期已经确定。

当时，他已经知道当天有课程安排。房东也没有征得租户的同意就延期了课程。

“回到审判的第二天，大约上午 10 点 46 分，我第一次听到一个轻柔的背景声音，听起来像是有人在和（房东）在同一个房间里说话，”谭先生说。

“当我问他声音是从哪里传来的时，（房东）坦白承认，庭审期间他正在用手机上课。”

地方法官告诉房东，这种行为“绝对不可接受”，并要求他停止这种行为。

房东声称他之前只是登录记录考勤后就退出了，但课程演示文稿不知何故出现在了他的手机上。

法官驳回了这一“站不住脚的解释”，认为其“显然是错误的”。该课程通过Zoom进行，并使用了唯一的会议号和密码。

“一个人不会偶然发现自己置身于Zoom会议中，”谭先生说。

“要想让发言者的声音被听到，（房东）肯定采取了主动参加会议的举动。”

谭先生表示，房东的行为已经远远超出了“试图同时做两件事的无礼行为”。

他说：“通过视频会议参加庭审是为诉讼当事人提供的便利，而不是一项可以强加的权利。”

他说房东只愿意“投入一部分精力”来审理此案。

“这足以说明他对待这些诉讼有多么轻率，”谭先生说。

他表示，房东的行为“不公平地加重了”诉讼程序的负担，因此，给予原告诉讼费用补偿是公正合理的。

陈先生表示，不应将200新元的数额作为对这种诉讼行为的当事人判处诉讼费用的基准或上限。

今年6月，陈先生在另一起SCT案件中，因一家女佣中介机构代表在审判期间的行为，判令该机构承担诉讼费用。

订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。

订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。

加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。