Lim Siew Hwa v Loh Kim Hon

Facts

Lim Siew Hwa owned a semi-detached house which she let to Loh Kim Hon under a tenancy agreement dated 15 July 2021 for four years from 30 September 2021 at a monthly rent of $4,000. Her son, Hoo Siong, who had full authority over the tenancy, dealt with the matter through her estate agent. Disputes arose during the tenancy. By a lawyer's letter dated 29 September 2023, the landlord purported to terminate the agreement for repudiatory breach and gave notice of re-entry on 9 October 2023, but her representatives were unable to take possession that day.

She then brought District Court Originating Claim No 1685 of 2023, seeking a declaration that the tenancy had ended, possession, damages and double rent. She alleged that the tenant had moved a study table to the backyard, removed metal window grilles, moved a bedroom table said to be fixed to a wall, failed to store ceiling fans in the storeroom, and unreasonably refused inspections, and that these breaches were repudiatory individually or together. The tenant denied repudiation and counterclaimed that repeated inspections and correspondence breached his right to quiet enjoyment, and that the landlord had sued without first going to mediation or arbitration as the agreement required.

Issues

1. Whether the tenancy clauses relied on by the landlord were conditions whose breach allowed termination
2. Whether the tenant breached the agreement by his handling of the furniture, grilles and ceiling fans or by resisting inspections
3. Whether the landlord's inspections and correspondence breached the tenant's covenant of quiet enjoyment
4. Whether the landlord breached the clause requiring mediation or arbitration before going to court

Holding

The court allowed the landlord's claims in part, awarding nominal damages of $60 ($50 for the study table and $10 for the grilles) with interest at 5.33% per annum, and dismissed the remainder, finding no repudiatory breach. It allowed the tenant's counterclaims, ordering the landlord to pay $14,443.44, made up of $14,343.44 for breach of quiet enjoyment and $100 for breach of the dispute resolution clause, with interest at 5.33% per annum. Costs were to be fixed if not agreed.

Reasoning

Applying RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413, the judge held that none of the four clauses was a condition. None of the indicators in Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663 applied, several clauses carried their own limited remedies such as replacement or repair, and their wide scope made it unlikely the parties meant any breach to justify termination. The landlord's reliance on sentimental value was overplayed, since she had let the furnished house to several families.

The tenant accepted that he moved the study table to where it would be damaged, so he had to replace it, but no value was proved and only nominal damages were awarded. Removing the grilles without written consent breached the clause against alterations, but caused no proven damage. The bedroom table was found not to have been fixed to the wall when the tenancy began, and there was insufficient evidence that the fans were missing; the landlord's suggestion that they were later returned was called wholly fanciful. With most allegations failing, there was no cumulative repudiation.

The right to inspect had to be read with the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Six inspections in under a year, many letters asserting that the tenancy was at an end, a representative refusing to identify himself and moving the tenant's belongings amounted to substantial interference, so the tenant's later reluctance over dates was a reasonable response, not a breach. The legal fees he incurred during that period were recoverable. Finally, the tenant had proposed mediation in August 2022 and had not unequivocally waived the clause, while the landlord had shown no interest in mediation, so she breached it.

From the judgment