Singapore Landlord Penalized for Attending Online Course and Using AI During Court Trial
A Singapore landlord was ordered to pay his former tenant S$200 in costs after being caught attending an online course on his mobile phone during a video-conference trial, reported on October 19. Tribunal Magistrate Leon Abraham Tan ruled that the conduct was absolutely unacceptable, adding S$1,785 from a withheld S$6,000 security deposit to the payout after a routine tenancy dispute turned contentious.
How the Tenancy Dispute Unfolded at the Small Claims Tribunal
The case centered on a two-year lease for a one-bedroom apartment that began in March 2024, according to the article. When the lease ended, the landlord withheld the full S$6,000 security deposit—comprising two months of rent—and filed a counterclaim for an additional S$473.83, citing ten specific defects caused by the foreign tenant. Those alleged damages included a chipped bathroom tile costing S$320 to replace, three stained curtains priced at S$520, a cracked kitchen countertop, and a stained sofa cover.
The tribunal ultimately found that the landlord proved his entitlement to deduct about S$4,565 for three specific items: the cracked kitchen countertop, unevenly painted walls, and damaged television accessories. Alongside that partial deduction, the magistrate allowed S$350 of the tenant’s claim for air-conditioning repairs for which the landlord was liable. However, a separate S$100 claim for coolant gas top-ups was rejected because the lease placed that maintenance responsibility on the tenant.
Landlord Uses AI Submissions and Arrives Late to Trial
What distinguished the proceeding from a standard dispute was the landlord’s conduct across the two-day trial conducted via video conference, the article reported. The landlord arrived late on both days and made three attempts to relitigate a procedural matter that had already been settled. His legal submissions were generated using artificial intelligence, and he admitted during the proceedings that he neither fully understood nor verified the content.
The situation escalated on the second day of the trial at approximately 10:46 am. Tribunal Magistrate Leon Abraham Tan heard a soft background voice coming from the landlord’s location and asked where it originated. The landlord admitted he was simultaneously attending an online course conducted by the National Trades Union Congress on his mobile phone. While the landlord claimed he had merely logged on early to record his attendance and that the course presentation had appeared by accident, the magistrate dismissed the explanation as flimsy and patently false, noting that a person does not join a Zoom meeting by accident.
In addition to the S$200 in costs awarded for disrupting the proceedings and protracting the trial, the landlord was required to return the remaining S$1,785 of the security deposit to the tenant. Magistrate Tan stated that the modest costs order should not serve as a benchmark or ceiling for future litigants who treat court proceedings with similar inattention.
Disclaimer: The views and cultural analyses presented in this article are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Information regarding legal disputes or financial data is based on available public records.