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

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.