From Small Claims to Big Questions: Singapore Tenancy Case Highlights AI and Remote-Hearing Standards That Also Shape Modern Sport

SINGAPORE: A routine tenancy dispute before Singapore’s Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) has resulted in a landlord being ordered to pay S$200 (US$156) in costs to his former tenant, after he was found to be attending an online course on his mobile phone during the hearing and relying on generative artificial intelligence to prepare legal submissions he neither fully understood nor verified.

The hearing, conducted by video conference, was twice delayed by the landlord’s late attendance. Tribunal Magistrate Leon Abraham Tan said the landlord’s conduct disrupted the proceedings and left the trial “unnecessarily protracted”, in written grounds of decision published on Monday (Oct 19).

On top of the S$200 costs order, the landlord was directed to pay his ex-tenant S$1,785. This sum came from a S$6,000 security deposit, which he had withheld in full on the basis that the tenant allegedly caused multiple defects in the rented unit.

Run-of-the-mill dispute, exceptional conduct

In his decision, Magistrate Tan stressed that the underlying matter was a standard tenancy disagreement. Parties were anonymised, which is normal for SCT cases as they are heard in private.

The claimant, a foreigner, had rented a one-bedroom apartment from the landlord for two years from March 2024.

At the end of the lease, the landlord retained the full S$6,000 deposit, equivalent to two months’ rent, and filed a counterclaim of S$473.83. The tenant filed a claim for S$6,450, seeking:

• A full refund of the S$6,000 deposit; and
• S$450 as compensation for air-conditioning costs he said he had incurred for the unit.

The tenant disputed each of the 10 alleged defects cited by the landlord. These included:

• A chipped bathroom tile, which the landlord said cost S$320 to replace;
• Three stained curtains, with a stated replacement cost of S$520;
• A cracked kitchen countertop; and
• A stained sofa cover.

Of the 10 issues raised, the tribunal found that the landlord had proved his entitlement to deduct about S$4,565 for three categories of defects:

• The cracked kitchen countertop;
• Unevenly painted walls; and
• Defects to accessories that came with a television set.

On the tenant’s side of the ledger, the magistrate allowed S$350 for repairs the tenant had paid for to fix the air-conditioning, ruling that such repairs were the landlord’s responsibility. However, he rejected the tenant’s claim for S$100 in coolant gas top-ups, finding that the tenant, not the landlord, was liable for those costs during the lease.

Magistrate Tan described the tenancy element as a “run-of-the-mill” dispute that would not normally justify detailed written grounds. What made this case different, he wrote, was the landlord’s behaviour over two days of trial.

AI-written submissions and repeated procedural challenges

Across both hearing days, the landlord was late and repeatedly attempted to reopen a procedural issue that had already been decided, trying three times to relitigate it.

Magistrate Tan noted that the landlord’s written submissions had been generated by a generative artificial intelligence tool. The landlord admitted that he did not completely understand the arguments that had been produced and had not independently verified them.

For sport, where clubs, athletes and agents are also beginning to experiment with AI for contract work, disciplinary responses and salary negotiations, the tribunal’s concern is highly relevant. The case underscores that decision-makers will expect parties to understand and stand behind documents they submit, regardless of whether those documents were produced by human counsel, automated tools or a mix of both.

Online course during hearing leads to costs order

The decisive moment came on the second day of the trial, which the landlord had tried unsuccessfully to move so that he could attend an online National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) course.

The court rejected that application because the landlord had already confirmed his availability when the trial date was fixed. He also knew the course was scheduled for the same day and had not secured the tenant’s consent to any postponement.

During the eventual hearing, held by video link, Magistrate Tan recounted that at about 10.46am he first heard a soft background sound “resembling someone else speaking in the same room” as the landlord.

When asked about the noise, the landlord candidly admitted that he was attending the NTUC course on his phone at the same time as the trial.

The magistrate told him the behaviour was “absolutely unacceptable” and instructed him to stop. The landlord claimed he had merely logged in earlier to record his attendance and then logged off, suggesting that the course presentation had somehow reappeared on his device.

Magistrate Tan rejected what he called a “flimsy explanation”, finding it “patently false”. He noted that the course was conducted on Zoom with a unique meeting ID and password: “A person does not find himself in a Zoom meeting by accident.” For the presenter’s voice to be audible, he concluded, the landlord must have taken deliberate steps to join the session.

Standards for remote proceedings in sport and beyond

Magistrate Tan said the landlord’s actions went beyond the “discourtesy of attempting to do two things at once”. In his view, the conduct undermined the integrity and efficiency of remote hearings, which he described as “a convenience extended to litigants” rather than an entitlement.

He observed that the landlord had been content to give the trial “only a part of his attention”, and that this was “the measure of how lightly he treated these proceedings”. The landlord’s conduct, he wrote, “unfairly burdened” the hearing, making it “only just and reasonable” to compensate the claimant with an order for costs.

For sport’s fast-expanding ecosystem of remote and hybrid hearings – from domestic league disciplinary panels to international arbitration – the reasoning is immediately recognisable. Major sporting bodies, including the Court of Arbitration for Sport and global federations, have leaned heavily on video hearings to manage congested calendars and international participation. The message from Singapore’s tribunal reinforces a growing norm: the convenience of remote access does not dilute expectations of focus, decorum and procedural respect.

Singapore’s Small Claims Tribunals framework is designed to offer a streamlined route for low-value civil disputes, including matters that often overlap with the off-field lives of professional athletes, coaches and support staff living abroad. Standards developed in such forums can influence how clubs, agents and governing bodies structure their own internal processes, including when they convene remote panels to address contractual or conduct issues.

Costs as a warning, not a ceiling

Magistrate Tan emphasised that the S$200 awarded to the tenant as costs should not be viewed as a benchmark or an upper limit for penalties imposed on litigants who behave similarly in future cases. Rather, it reflected the facts before him – a single hearing, a limited underlying claim and conduct that, while serious, did not involve contempt proceedings.

The written grounds highlight that this was not an isolated instance of the magistrate using costs to address problematic behaviour in the tribunal setting. In June, he had also ordered costs against a maid agency in another SCT matter because of the way its representative conducted themselves during trial.

The use of modest but pointed financial sanctions to correct conduct will resonate with sports administrators, who routinely rely on fines and costs awards to enforce procedural standards in everything from transfer disputes to coaching appeals. Even relatively small sums, when tied explicitly to behaviour in a hearing, can send a wider deterrent signal through a professional ecosystem.

Implications for a global sports audience

While the Singapore case involved a private landlord and a residential tenancy, its broader themes are familiar across the sports world:

• Remote justice is still real justice: Whether the forum is a civil tribunal or a disciplinary panel in a major league, the expectation that parties treat online hearings as seriously as in-person proceedings is now firmly entrenched.
• AI cannot replace accountability: Submissions derived from generative AI tools still require human understanding and verification. For clubs, players’ unions and agents increasingly turning to technology to manage complex regulatory texts, this case underlines that responsibility for content cannot be outsourced.
• Costs and fines as behavioural levers: The tribunal’s S$200 order mirrors the way governing bodies use targeted financial penalties to reinforce professional standards without resorting immediately to suspensions or bans.

As sport continues to globalise, with talent and investment flowing through jurisdictions that apply different civil and procedural rules, the Singapore decision offers a clear, concrete illustration of how everyday disputes can set practical guardrails for AI use and remote conduct – on and off the field.