Chiu Cheuk Man v Wu Jianou

Chiu Cheuk Man v Wu Jianou

Defendant proved a discrete set of specific defects existed at handover and were caused by the claimant; claimant proved only one item (cleaning of water tank) amounted to fair wear and tear; defendant failed to prove most rectification costs and loss of rental due to lack of invoices, evidence of work done and failure to mitigate; accordingly defendant allowed pro‑rated commission and limited rectification sums, must return balance of security deposit and claimant is entitled to interest.

Citation
[2026] SGMC 36
Parties
Claimant: Chiu Cheuk Man; Defendant: Wu Jianou
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
17 March 2026
Case Number
MC/OC 307/2025
Procedural Posture
Magistrate's Court Originating Claim (landlord and Tenant) / Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds in part. Defendant's counterclaim allowed in part for pro‑rated commission and limited rectification costs; loss of rental dismissed.
Legal Topics
Repair Obligations, Security Deposit, Fair Wear and Tear, Mitigation of Loss, Damages, Interest
Source Language
English
Landlord and Tenant Contract Property Repair Obligations Security Deposit Fair Wear and Tear Mitigation of Loss Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chiu Cheuk Man

Claimant

Wu Jianou

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Magistrate's Court Originating Claim (landlord and Tenant) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was entitled to withhold the security deposit for alleged breaches of repair and maintenance covenants
  2. 2 Whether the alleged defects existed at the date of handover and were caused by the tenant
  3. 3 Whether particular defects amounted to fair wear and tear

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant proved a discrete set of specific defects existed at handover and were caused by the claimant; claimant proved only one item (cleaning of water tank) amounted to fair wear and tear; defendant failed to prove most rectification costs and loss of rental due to lack of invoices, evidence of work done and failure to mitigate; accordingly defendant allowed pro‑rated commission and limited rectification sums, must return balance of security deposit and claimant is entitled to interest.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds in part. Defendant's counterclaim allowed in part for pro‑rated commission and limited rectification costs; loss of rental dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to return to claimant the balance of the security deposit of SGD 25557.98
  • Defendant awarded pro‑rated commission of SGD 3042.02 and rectification costs of SGD 400 to set off against the deposit