"The plaintiff has not established that the tenancy agreement was wrongfully terminated on 22 May 2019, and her claim for wrongful detention of belongings also fails because I find that she did not leave any belongings in the Studio Unit after that date." — Per Kwek Mean Luck J, Para 37 and Para 39
Case Information
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 108
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Decision Date: 13 May 2022
- Coram: Kwek Mean Luck J
- Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: The judgment does not specify counsel names. (The judgment does not address this issue.)
- Counsel for Defendant/Respondent: The judgment does not specify counsel names. (The judgment does not address this issue.)
- Case Number: Suit No 943 of 2019
- Area of Law: Landlord and Tenant — Termination of leases; Tort — Conversion
- Judgment Length: Approximately 40 paragraphs; about 10–12 pages of substantive reasons
Summary
The plaintiff, a former tenant of a studio unit at My Manhattan, sued her landlord’s estate and the landlord’s daughter alleging that her tenancy was wrongfully terminated on 22 May 2019 and that her belongings were wrongfully detained. The court identified the central dispute as whether the plaintiff had already decided to move out and whether the defendants had in fact terminated the tenancy or merely acted on the plaintiff’s own intention to leave. The court also examined whether the plaintiff had left any belongings in the unit after the events of 22 May 2019. (Para 1, Para 2, Para 3, Para 4, Para 5, Para 6, Para 7, Para 8)
On the evidence, the court found that the plaintiff had indicated before 22 May 2019 that she intended to move out when the tenancy ended, and that she had stopped the GIRO rental payment because she wanted to use the security deposit to cover the final months’ rent. The court also found that the defendants had issued three notices, but the plaintiff’s own evidence and the objective evidence did not establish that the tenancy was wrongfully terminated by the defendants on 22 May 2019. The court placed weight on the plaintiff’s failure to check whether the landlord accepted her proposal to use the security deposit before stopping payment. (Para 3, Para 4, Para 5, Para 6, Para 7, Para 8, Para 9, Para 10, Para 11, Para 12, Para 13, Para 14, Para 15, Para 16, Para 17)
As to the conversion claim, the court held that the plaintiff did not prove that she left belongings in the studio unit after 22 May 2019. The court considered the photographs, the plaintiff’s evidence, the payment she made on 23 May 2019, and the fourth defendant’s police reports, and concluded that the plaintiff’s account was not reliable. The court therefore dismissed the claim for wrongful detention of belongings and the plaintiff’s other claims. (Para 18, Para 19, Para 20, Para 21, Para 22, Para 23, Para 24, Para 25, Para 26, Para 27, Para 28, Para 29, Para 30, Para 31, Para 32, Para 33, Para 34, Para 35, Para 36, Para 37, Para 38, Para 39, Para 40)
What Were the Undisputed Background Facts?
The plaintiff was a tenant of the Studio Unit at 29 Simei Street 3, #09-10, My Manhattan, under a 12-month tenancy agreement running from 18 July 2018 to 17 July 2019. The monthly rent was $2,300, payable one month in advance by GIRO, and the plaintiff had paid a security deposit of $4,600. The Studio Unit formed part of a dual-key apartment, and the fourth defendant stayed in the Main Unit from time to time. Nicholas Tan, the real estate agent who arranged the tenancy, was also renting a bedroom in the Main Unit and later testified for the defendants. (Para 2, Para 3, Para 4)
The court noted that the relationship between the plaintiff and the fourth defendant deteriorated over time, but said the earlier incidents of conflict were not germane to the claim. The judgment therefore focused on the events leading up to 22 May 2019, the events on that date, and what happened afterwards. (Para 4)
What Did the Plaintiff Say Happened Before 22 May 2019?
The plaintiff relied on a message sent to Nicholas on or about 1 May 2019, in which she said she had “to tolerate for another 2 month” and was “moving out once [her] contact is ended,” adding that she had already paid two months’ rent in advance and that this would offset June and July payment. The plaintiff’s case was that this showed she did not wish to continue the tenancy after 17 July 2019. Nicholas’ evidence was broadly aligned with that position, as he said she called him on 6 May 2019 and said she was moving out and wanted the security deposit used to offset the remaining rent. (Para 5, Para 6)
The court also recorded that Nicholas said the first defendant instructed him to prepare notices to be issued to the plaintiff, and that three notices were in fact prepared. Those notices became central to the dispute because they were said to show the landlord’s response to the plaintiff’s stated intention not to continue paying rent. (Para 7)
What Were the Three Notices and Why Did They Matter?
The first notice, dated 5 May 2019, stated that the landlord would exercise the right to take back possession as of 18 May 2019. It referred to alleged incidents on 22 and 29 April 2019, the plaintiff’s indication that she would not continue rental payment and wished to use the security deposit as rent, and it demanded return of the keys and payment of $5,830 for default of rent and damages. Nicholas and the fourth defendant said they slid the notice under the door when the plaintiff did not answer. (Para 8)
The second notice, dated 18 May 2019, was broadly similar. It repeated the references to the April incidents, repeated the plaintiff’s stated intention to use the security deposit to offset rent, required return of the keys by 5.00pm on 18 May 2019, and again demanded $5,830. The third notice, dated 21 May 2019, was also broadly similar, but required return of the keys within three days and payment of $5,830. The defendants’ evidence was that each notice was slid under the door when the plaintiff did not open it. (Para 9, Para 10)
The court noted that the plaintiff said she did not receive any of the three notices and was not told that the landlord did not accept her proposed use of the security deposit. She said that if she had been told, she would have paid immediately. The court also noted that there was no evidence that she checked whether the landlord had agreed before she stopped the GIRO payment due on 18 May 2019 for the June 2019 rent. (Para 11)
What Happened on 22 May 2019?
The court treated the events of 22 May 2019 as materially disputed, but it extracted certain objective facts from CCTV recordings, WhatsApp messages, and call timings. These included the plaintiff entering the lift lobby at 10.35pm, calling Nicholas at 10.37pm and again at 10.39pm and 10.40pm, sending a text at 10.44pm asking why she could not open the door, and exiting the lift lobby at around 10.55pm. The court used these objective markers to frame the competing narratives. (Para 12)
The plaintiff’s version was that she returned at about 10.30pm and could not enter because the access code to the main door had been changed without her knowledge. She said Nicholas told her to go to the guardhouse, where the fourth defendant was waiting with police officers and a security guard. She alleged that the fourth defendant demanded the return of the keys, refused her request to retrieve her cheque book and belongings, and that a police officer took the keys from her hand and handed them to the fourth defendant. She also said the fourth defendant demanded $4,600 as outstanding rent and told her she could pay the next day to be allowed back in to collect her belongings. (Para 13)
The fourth defendant’s version was different. She said she had chanced upon the plaintiff earlier that night, feared for her safety, called the police, and waited at the guardhouse. She said a security guard later found the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was served with a Small Claims Tribunal summons, that the police spoke to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff voluntarily handed over her keys and access cards to the security guard, who then passed them to the fourth defendant. Nicholas said he was not present during the confrontation and later learned that the plaintiff had returned the access cards and keys to the security guard. (Para 14, Para 15)
What Happened After 22 May 2019?
On 23 May 2019, the plaintiff transferred $4,600 to the account of the first and fourth defendants at 10.34am. She said she did so because the fourth defendant demanded payment before releasing her belongings. She later texted Nicholas at 3.04pm to inform him of the payment. The defendants’ evidence was that around midday they entered the Studio Unit and found it vacant, with no personal belongings inside. The fourth defendant took photographs of the unit on her handphone and later uploaded them to her daughter’s laptop, and those photographs were later examined by a jointly appointed forensic expert. (Para 16, Para 17)
The plaintiff was admitted to Mount Elizabeth Hospital from 24 to 27 May 2019 and claimed that the admission was due to her heart condition, triggered by the stress of eviction. She sought medical expenses on that basis. (Para 18)
What Did Each Party Argue?
The plaintiff argued that the defendants wrongfully terminated the tenancy on 22 May 2019 and wrongfully detained her belongings. Her case depended on the proposition that she was prevented from re-entering the Studio Unit, that the defendants took her keys and access cards, and that she was denied access to retrieve her possessions. She also relied on her hospitalisation and heart condition as consequential loss. (Para 1, Para 13, Para 18)
The defendants’ case was that the plaintiff had already decided to move out, had stopped paying rent, and had voluntarily returned the keys and access cards. They maintained that the plaintiff had not left any belongings in the unit after 22 May 2019, and that the photographs supported their account that the unit was vacant. Nicholas’ evidence was used to support the defendants’ version on the plaintiff’s intention to move out and on the events of 22 May 2019. (Para 6, Para 7, Para 14, Para 15, Para 17)
How Did the Court Assess the Key Factual Issues?
The court identified three notices as important evidence, but it did not treat them as conclusive proof that the tenancy was wrongfully terminated. Instead, it examined whether the plaintiff had already indicated that she intended to move out and whether she had any basis for stopping the GIRO payment without confirming the landlord’s agreement. The court noted the absence of evidence that she sought confirmation before ceasing payment. (Para 7, Para 8, Para 9, Para 10, Para 11)
On the events of 22 May 2019, the court relied on objective evidence such as CCTV, WhatsApp messages, and call timings to anchor the timeline. It then compared the plaintiff’s account with the fourth defendant’s and Nicholas’ accounts. The judgment shows that the court was concerned with whether the plaintiff was excluded from the unit by the defendants or whether the events were more consistent with a voluntary handover of keys and access cards in the context of a dispute over rent and possession. (Para 12, Para 13, Para 14, Para 15)
On the belongings issue, the court considered the photographs, the plaintiff’s evidence about what she left behind, her payment on 23 May 2019, and the fourth defendant’s police reports. It also considered the plaintiff’s heart condition and hospitalisation, but the judgment’s reasoning indicates that these matters did not persuade the court that the plaintiff had proved wrongful detention of property. (Para 17, Para 18, Para 19, Para 20, Para 21, Para 22, Para 23, Para 24, Para 25, Para 26, Para 27, Para 28, Para 29, Para 30, Para 31, Para 32, Para 33, Para 34, Para 35, Para 36)
What Did the Court Decide on Wrongful Termination of the Tenancy?
The court held that the plaintiff had not established that the tenancy agreement was wrongfully terminated on 22 May 2019. The judgment’s reasoning, as reflected in the factual findings, was that the plaintiff had already indicated an intention to move out, had stopped the GIRO payment without confirming the landlord’s acceptance of her proposal to use the security deposit, and had not shown that the defendants unlawfully terminated the tenancy rather than responding to her own position. (Para 37, Para 5, Para 6, Para 11)
What Did the Court Decide on Wrongful Detention of Belongings?
The court held that the plaintiff’s claim for wrongful detention of belongings failed because she did not prove that she left any belongings in the Studio Unit after 22 May 2019. The court’s conclusion was based on its assessment of the evidence, including the photographs, the plaintiff’s account, the payment made on 23 May 2019, and the fourth defendant’s police reports. (Para 39, Para 17, Para 21, Para 22, Para 23, Para 24, Para 25, Para 26, Para 27, Para 28, Para 29, Para 30, Para 31, Para 32, Para 33, Para 34, Para 35, Para 36)
How Did the Court Assess Credibility?
The judgment contains a separate credibility analysis of the plaintiff, Nicholas, and the fourth defendant. The court’s treatment of credibility was important because the case turned heavily on disputed oral evidence about the notices, the access arrangements, the alleged handover of keys, and whether belongings remained in the unit. The court’s findings on credibility fed directly into its rejection of the plaintiff’s version. (Para 31, Para 32, Para 33, Para 34, Para 35, Para 36)
The judgment does not reproduce the detailed credibility findings in the excerpt provided, but it clearly indicates that the court made express findings on the credibility of each of those witnesses before reaching its decision. The judgment does not address this issue further in the provided text. (Para 31, Para 32, Para 33, Para 34, Para 35, Para 36)
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters because it shows how a landlord-tenant dispute can turn on the interaction between a tenant’s own stated intention to leave, the landlord’s notices, and the objective evidence surrounding access to the premises. The court’s reasoning demonstrates that a tenant who unilaterally stops rent payment and assumes the security deposit will be applied to future rent does so at risk if there is no evidence of the landlord’s agreement. (Para 5, Para 6, Para 7, Para 11, Para 37)
The case is also significant for conversion claims arising out of alleged detention of personal property. The court required proof that belongings were actually left behind and did not accept a claim based merely on the tenant’s assertion that she was prevented from retrieving them. The decision therefore underscores the evidential burden on a claimant to prove both possession and detention in a property-related tort claim. (Para 17, Para 39)
Cases Referred To
| Case Name | Citation | How Used | Key Proposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| The judgment does not identify any reported cases in the provided text. | The judgment does not address this issue. | Referred to | The judgment does not address this issue. |
Legislation Referenced
- The judgment does not identify any statutes in the provided text.
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 108 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.