JID v JIE

[2026] SGSCT 18 Small Claims Tribunals 7 July 2026 SCT/11553/2025 48 min read
7 cases cited (6 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court Small Claims Tribunals
Decided
Judge Leon Abraham Tan
Charges / claim Small Claims Tribunals

Source: [2026] SGSCT 18, Small Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Small Claims Tribunals — Costs — Whether costs should be awarded for the Respondent’s deliberate absence at trial under s 35(1)(f) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed) Small Claims Tribunals — Procedure — Adjournment or vacation of hearings — Application for change of court date under para 46 of the State Courts Practice Directions 2021 — Strict judicial policy on observing hearing dates — Strong compelling grounds needed before tribunal exercises discretion to vacate hearing dates Small Claims Tribunals — Procedure — Absence due to medical grounds — Requirements for medical certificates under para 14 of the State Courts Practice Directions 2021 — Tribunal entitled to reject non-compliant medical certificates — Whether Respondent’s repeated non-compliance with requirements for medical certificates was excusable Small Claims Tribunals — Judgments and orders — Application under s 41(1) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed) to set aside default judgment issued after trial in Respondent’s absence — Whether there were countervailing factors tilting balance in favour of setting aside default judgment when Respondent was deliberately absent at trial

Practice Areas

Small Claims Tribunals

Judges (1)

Leon Abraham Tan Delivered

Parties (2)

JID Plaintiff
JIE Defendant

Case Significance

JID v JIE [2026] SGSCT 18 is a Small Claims Tribunals decision of Tribunal Magistrate Leon Abraham Tan, with grounds dated 7 July 2026, in Claim No 11553 of 2025. The claimant, a nurse who had rented a room from the respondent, sued to recover her $800 security deposit after ending the lease early. The respondent did not attend the trials on 25 August 2025 or 30 September 2025, and a default judgment of $1,536.47 was entered under s 29(b) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984. The issues were whether to set the judgment aside under s 41(1), whether her non-compliant medical certificates excused her absence, and whether costs should be awarded. The Tribunal dismissed the set aside application on 21 October 2025, so the default judgment stood, and ordered costs of $501.29 and disbursements of $235.18.

[2026] SGSCT 18 explained

JID v JIE ([2026] SGSCT 18) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGSCT on 7 July 2026. It is categorised under Small Claims Tribunals. 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 18 about?

JID v JIE ([2026] SGSCT 18) is a SGSCT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Small Claims Tribunals — Costs — Whether costs should be awarded for the Respondent’s deliberate absence at trial under s 35(1)(f) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed)”, “Small Claims Tribunals — Procedure — Adjournment or vacation of hearings — Application for change of court date under para 46 of the State Courts Practice Directions 2021 — Strict judicial policy on observing hearing dates — Strong compelling grounds needed before tribunal exercises discretion to vacate hearing dates”, “Small Claims Tribunals — Procedure — Absence due to medical grounds — Requirements for medical certificates under para 14 of the State Courts Practice Directions 2021 — Tribunal entitled to reject non-compliant medical certificates — Whether Respondent’s repeated non-compliance with requirements for medical certificates was excusable”, and “Small Claims Tribunals — Judgments and orders — Application under s 41(1) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed) to set aside default judgment issued after trial in Respondent’s absence — Whether there were countervailing factors tilting balance in favour of setting aside default judgment when Respondent was deliberately absent at trial”, 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 18 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.

Summary

The Small Claims Tribunals dealt with a tenant's claim to recover an $800 security deposit forfeited by her landlord. After the respondent failed to attend trial on two dates, a default judgment of $1,536.47 was entered against her. The Tribunal Magistrate dismissed her application under s 41(1) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 to set aside the judgment, finding her absence deliberate and her medical certificates non-compliant, and awarded the claimant $501.29 as costs thrown away and $235.18 in disbursements.

Why was the application to set aside the default judgment dismissed in JID v JIE [2026] SGSCT 18?

The Tribunal found the respondent's absence from two trial dates deliberate and without reasonable excuse, her medical certificates non-compliant, and her prospects on the merits poor. Weighing the Su Sh-Hsyu factors, the balance fell decisively against setting the default judgment aside.

What costs were awarded in [2026] SGSCT 18?

Under s 35(1)(f) of the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant $501.29 as costs thrown away for the wasted first trial day, plus $235.18 in disbursements.

Statutes Cited

Small Claims Tribunals Act
s 29(b) s 35(1)(f) s 41(1)

Cases Cited (7)

SG (2)
[2014] SGHC 246 [2021] SGHC(A) 12
SLR (4)
[2007] 3 SLR 673 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907 [2011] 3 SLR 869 [2017] 1 SLR 219
UK (1)
[1979] Ch 496

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGSCT 18)