Chiu Cheuk Man v Wu Jianou

Facts

The claimant, Chiu Cheuk Man, rented a unit at OUE Twin Peaks from the defendant, Wu Jianou, for 24 months from 20 February 2023 and paid a security deposit of $29,000. With his work pass expiring, he gave two months' written notice of early termination, and the tenancy ended on 30 September 2024. Representatives of both sides inspected the unit that day and signed a handover list.

The defendant kept the whole deposit. In Magistrate's Court Originating Claim No 307 of 2025 the claimant sued for $25,957.98, being the deposit less pro-rated agent's commission of $3,042.02 that he accepted he owed. The defendant counterclaimed for repair, cleaning and replacement costs for 22 alleged defects, revised to $5,133.40, and for 1.5 months' lost rent at $14,500 a month, alleging breaches of the repair, maintenance, air-conditioning and yield-up clauses of the tenancy agreement. The claim was heard by District Judge Sim Mei Ling.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant's agents had admitted liability for some of the alleged defects
2. Whether the defendant proved that each alleged defect existed at handover and was caused by the claimant
3. Whether the proven damage amounted to fair wear and tear
4. What loss, including lost rent, the defendant proved

Holding

The court allowed the claim in part and dismissed the counterclaim for lost rent. The defendant was entitled to set off the pro-rated commission of $3,042.02 and rectification costs of $400, being $300 for a removed mirror and nominal damages of $100 for the other proven defects. She was ordered to return the balance of $25,557.98 to the claimant, with interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the originating claim, and costs were left to further submissions.

Reasoning

Although the defendant had not pleaded the yield-up clause, the court allowed her to rely on it because she raised it in her opening statement and on facts already in issue, so the claimant suffered no irremediable prejudice. Messages from the claimant's property agent had accepted responsibility for cleaning the sofa, carpet and roller blinds, the cooker filter, a remote control and ceiling lights. Both the agent and the claimant's representative accepted in court that those items were not fair wear and tear, which undercut the claimant's argument that he had merely been offering to settle. The court rejected the defendant's reading of the $250 minor-repairs clause, since the same clause put larger costs on the landlord.

The landlord bore the burden of proving damage at the end of the tenancy, measured against the original state of the unit, as explained in Lee Tat Realty Pte Ltd v Limco Products Manufacturing Pte Ltd and Sunnydays Pte Ltd v Real Centre Holding Pte Ltd. The tenant then bore the burden of proving fair wear and tear. Defects missing from the handover list were not automatically excluded, but their absence weighed against the defendant. Her undated photographs also did not show when they were taken. Defects such as chipped cabinets, a chipped wall and door frame, sofa stains and a damaged toilet seat were proven and were not fair wear and tear. Several others, including the air-conditioning servicing claim, failed for lack of proof.

The defendant produced only informal quotations and no invoices or receipts, and no proof that the work was done, so only nominal damages were awarded beyond the agreed $300 for the mirror. The lost-rent claim failed because she delayed rectification while negotiating, gave no evidence of how long the works took or of tenants turned away, and did not show that the unit could have been let at $14,500 when the new tenant paid $9,600.

From the judgment