JHQ v JHR
Key facts
| Court | Small Claims Tribunals |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Jared Kang Chern Wey |
| Charges / claim | Landlord and Tenant, Evidence |
Source: [2026] SGSCT 17, Small Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
JHQ v JHR and another matter [2026] SGSCT 17 is a Small Claims Tribunals decision delivered by Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey on 12 June 2026, resolving two connected claims, Nos 20750 and 20752 of 2024, from the same residential tenancy, heard together on 7 May 2025. The landlord, referred to as Mr C, claimed $2,550 against his former tenant, Mr R, comprising forfeiture of a $1,750 security deposit and $800 in alleged additional losses, while Mr R counterclaimed for return of the full deposit; Mr C, who resides in Cyprus, did not attend the hearing and at 2:11am on the hearing day filed an adjournment application, unsupported by a medical certificate, citing a fractured hand. The judgment applies the Small Claims Tribunals Act and addresses evidence by video link under Practice Direction 59.
[2026] SGSCT 17 explained
JHQ v JHR ([2026] SGSCT 17) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGSCT on 12 June 2026. It is categorised under Landlord and Tenant and Evidence. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGSCT 17 about?
JHQ v JHR ([2026] SGSCT 17) is a SGSCT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Landlord and Tenant — Covenants — Repair — Security deposit” and “Evidence — Witnesses — Evidence by video link — Practice Direction 59”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGSCT 17 consider?
The judgment refers to Small Claims Tribunals Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How much did the landlord claim against the tenant in the JHQ v JHR security deposit dispute ([2026] SGSCT 17)?
In JHQ v JHR [2026] SGSCT 17, the landlord, Mr C, claimed $2,550 from his former tenant, Mr R, comprising forfeiture of a $1,750 security deposit plus $800 in additional alleged losses, while Mr R sought return of the deposit.
Statutes Cited
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGSCT 17)