{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff maintains that she complied with the tenancy terms and was locked out without notice, losing access to her personal items. She asserts that the defendants changed the door code and wrongfully terminated the lease, causing her stress-related health complications. She contends she was unaware that using the security deposit to offset rent contravened the tenancy. The defendants argue that they issued valid notices for breaches, that the plaintiff voluntarily handed over the keys, and that no door code was altered. They deny wrongful eviction or detention of the plaintiff\u2019s belongings and maintain the plaintiff had already vacated the premises.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice Kwek Mean Luck" ], "case_number": [ "Suit No. 943 of 2019" ], "cases_referred": [ "Hsu Hsueh Hui v Foong Yook Kooi [2022] SGHC 108", "The \u0027Posidon\u0027 and another matter [2018] 3 SLR 372", "Tan Soo Leng David v Lim Thian Chai Charles and another [1998] 1 SLR(R) 880 at [15]" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff contends that she maintained her tenancy obligations and was unjustly barred from her studio unit, resulting in the loss of personal items. The defendants argue that the termination was justified based on conduct by the plaintiff and that no unlawful detention of items occurred.", "cases_referred": [], "facts": "The plaintiff rented a studio unit from the first defendant under a 12-month tenancy beginning 18 July 2018. She paid a security deposit and monthly rent of $2,300 in advance. Relations with the landlord\u2019s daughter, who helped manage the property, deteriorated over time. On 22 May 2019, the plaintiff claims the tenancy was wrongly terminated and her belongings were kept from her. The deceased landlord\u2019s estate is represented by the second and third defendants, while the fourth defendant is the landlord\u2019s daughter. The plaintiff filed suit in the High Court of Singapore, following the disputed events of 22 May 2019.", "final_status": "Judgment reserved", "formatted_summary": "This section concerns a dispute between a tenant and a landlord\u2019s estate, where the tenant alleges wrongful termination of her lease and wrongful detention of her belongings on 22 May 2019. Relations between the tenant and the landlord\u2019s daughter deteriorated before the event. The plaintiff brought her claims to the High Court of Singapore, seeking redress for the alleged wrongful actions. The court reserved judgment on the matter, providing no final determination in the excerpt.", "held": "The court did not provide a final decision in the text. Judgment was reserved.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "The main questions concern whether the termination of the tenancy on 22 May 2019 was improper and whether the plaintiff\u2019s belongings were wrongfully detained.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_10": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff contends she did not abandon the property and that the defendants changed access and removed her belongings. She challenges the credibility of the defendants\u2019 witnesses and points to alleged inconsistencies in their statements. The defendants argue that the plaintiff violated the terms of the tenancy by unilaterally applying the security deposit to outstanding rent, voluntarily handed over the keys and cards, and that her valuables were never left in the unit. They rely on the consistent testimony of additional witnesses and the absence of any credible evidence showing the plaintiff\u2019s belongings were present at the time of inspection.", "cases_referred": [ "The \u0027Posidon\u0027 and another matter [2018] 3 SLR 372" ], "facts": "The dispute arises from a tenancy arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendants, focusing on whether the defendants wrongfully terminated the tenancy agreement after the plaintiff sought to use the security deposit for the final two months\u2019 rent. The plaintiff alleges that she was denied access to the property and that her belongings remained inside. The defendants contend that the plaintiff voluntarily vacated the premises and handed over the keys and access cards. Prior to this stage, police were called to the premises, and there were internal communications between the parties regarding the plaintiff\u2019s intent to offset rent with the security deposit. No lower court judgments or major procedural steps beyond these events are mentioned in the excerpt.", "final_status": "No final status stated in the provided excerpt", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt concerns a dispute over a tenancy agreement, where the plaintiff claims wrongful termination and the defendants contend that the plaintiff vacated the premises. Evidence centers on the plaintiff\u2019s attempt to offset rent using her security deposit, the handing over of keys and access cards, and witness testimonies about the property\u2019s vacant state. The text concludes with the court\u2019s factual findings favoring the defendants\u2019 account but does not reveal the final judgment.", "held": "In relation to the first main issue of wrongful termination, the court\u2019s findings suggest acceptance of the defendants\u2019 version of events, indicating that the plaintiff had handed over the keys and that the premises were vacant. However, the excerpt does not provide a final ruling or order, leaving the ultimate outcome undetermined from the text provided.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the defendants wrongfully terminated the tenancy agreement or whether the plaintiff had effectively vacated the premises and relinquished her rights under the tenancy, including the use of the security deposit.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_11": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff contended that she was forcibly denied entry and that the defendants had wrongly detained her belongings. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had voluntarily surrendered the Studio Unit on 22 May 2019, and that there was no evidence any property was left inside. They also maintained they were entitled to retain certain sums in light of the tenancy agreement but did not establish a valid basis for withholding the security deposit once the tenancy ended.", "cases_referred": [ "Tan Soo Leng David v Lim Thian Chai Charles and another [1998] 1 SLR(R) 880 at [15]" ], "facts": "The plaintiff leased a Studio Unit from the defendants and sought to use the security deposit for monthly rent, which the defendants regarded as a breach of their tenancy agreement. The plaintiff stopped her GIRO rental payment and then physically handed over the keys and access cards to the Studio Unit on 22 May 2019. The defendants, finding the unit vacant, took possession of it on 23 May 2019. The plaintiff commenced proceedings alleging wrongful termination of tenancy and wrongful detention of belongings. Prior to this hearing, there were no significant lower-court rulings or appeals noted in the record.", "final_status": "Disposed with partial relief", "formatted_summary": "In this landlord-tenant dispute, the plaintiff argued she was unlawfully evicted and had personal items wrongfully detained after attempting to use her security deposit for rental payments. The court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily surrendered the residence on 22 May 2019. Accordingly, her claims of wrongful termination and detention of belongings were dismissed. However, the court ordered the return of the security deposit as the defendants did not establish any valid reason to withhold it.", "held": "The court dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s claims for wrongful termination and wrongful detention of belongings, finding that she voluntarily handed over the unit. However, the plaintiff\u2019s security deposit had to be returned because no damage or further justification for its retention was proven. The decision affirms that a tenant\u2019s clear surrender of the property negates a wrongful eviction claim, but unsubstantiated withholding of a security deposit is not permissible.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the tenancy was wrongfully terminated by the defendants, whether the plaintiff was evicted or had voluntarily surrendered the property, whether belongings were wrongfully detained, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover her security deposit.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff contends she was unaware of any refusal to allow the security deposit to offset rent and that she never received the notices. She further alleges that her lockout was staged without proper grounds. The defendants assert the plaintiff breached the tenancy agreement by withholding rent and giving notice that she would rely on the security deposit, prompting them to serve multiple notices and reclaim possession.", "cases_referred": [], "facts": "The plaintiff leased a studio unit (the Studio Unit) from the defendants in a condominium known as My Manhattan under a tenancy agreement (the TA). She paid a security deposit and arranged monthly rental payments via GIRO. Over time, her relationship with one of the defendants deteriorated, leading to disputes about rent payment and the plaintiff\u2019s intention to use the security deposit to cover her last two months\u2019 rent. The defendants subsequently issued three notices alleging breaches by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims she was locked out on 22 May 2019 without proper notice. The present text details events leading up to what the plaintiff alleges was the wrongful termination of the TA but does not record any final judgment or outcome of the proceedings.", "final_status": "No final outcome is stated in the excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "This portion of the judgment recounts how the plaintiff\u2019s tenancy of a studio unit deteriorated due to a disagreement regarding the offset of rental payments with her security deposit. The defendants issued three notices alleging breach of the tenancy agreement, while the plaintiff claims she was locked out without proper justification. The excerpt does not indicate the court\u2019s final ruling.", "held": "No holding or final determination is provided in the excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the defendants were entitled to treat the plaintiff\u2019s proposal to use the security deposit for final rent as a breach of the tenancy agreement, and whether the alleged lockout constituted a wrongful termination of the tenancy.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff contends the door code was changed without notice, forcing her eviction and preventing the retrieval of her possessions. She maintains the keys were taken from her under duress and she paid additional sums to secure the return of her property. The defendants counter that the access code was never changed, the plaintiff voluntarily handed over her keys, and she had already removed her belongings by the time they entered the unit.", "cases_referred": [ "Hsu Hsueh Hui v Foong Yook Kooi [2022] SGHC 108" ], "facts": "The plaintiff, a tenant of a studio unit, alleges she was unable to access the premises on 22 May 2019 due to a changed door code. She claims the police, at the fourth defendant\u2019s behest, compelled her to surrender her keys and prevented her from retrieving personal belongings. She subsequently paid outstanding rent on 23 May 2019 and was hospitalized the next day. The fourth defendant and other witnesses assert the code was never changed and the plaintiff voluntarily handed over her access cards and keys. This dispute, including claims of wrongful eviction and withheld belongings, has progressed through initial exchanges, with the plaintiff ultimately filing this present action for damages.", "final_status": "No final disposition is indicated in the provided excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the plaintiff describes the sequence of events leading to her alleged eviction from a rented studio unit, including difficulties entering the property, interactions with the fourth defendant and police, and handover of keys. The plaintiff claims wrongful termination of her tenancy and seeks to recover damages for eviction, withheld belongings, and related expenses. The defendants deny any wrongdoing, asserting the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered access and had removed her belongings. The extract concludes before detailing the court\u2019s final determination.", "held": "No holding or decision is provided in the excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether there was a wrongful eviction, whether the tenancy was improperly terminated, and whether the defendants unlawfully detained the plaintiff\u2019s personal belongings are the main questions raised.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_4": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff argues she was forcibly and wrongfully evicted, as evidenced by the changed door code and alleged seizure of her belongings. She also maintains she was prevented from re-entering or retrieving her possessions. The defendants assert the plaintiff voluntarily vacated the premises, intending to terminate the tenancy early. They claim the keys and access cards were surrendered voluntarily, and the property was repossessed in acceptance of the plaintiff\u2019s presumed abandonment.", "cases_referred": [ "Hsu Hsueh Hui v Foong Yook Kooi [2022] SGHC 108" ], "facts": "The plaintiff alleges she was wrongfully evicted from the rented Studio Unit on 22 May 2019. She states that access codes were changed, preventing her entry, and that her keys and access cards were handed over to the defendants by the police. She also claims her personal belongings were not returned that night. The plaintiff seeks damages for wrongful termination of the tenancy, breach of contract, and related relief. The defendants contend that the plaintiff had already vacated the Unit and willingly surrendered her keys, leading the defendants to accept abandonment and repossess the premises. The trial has been bifurcated, with liability addressed at this stage and damages to be assessed later.", "final_status": "Matter remains part-heard with damages to be determined in a subsequent tranche.", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the court summarizes the conflicting accounts regarding the alleged wrongful eviction, the notices served upon the plaintiff, and the circumstances leading to the repossession of the premises. The plaintiff asserts she was forcibly deprived of access, while the defendants maintain she voluntarily abandoned the unit. The trial is bifurcated, and the issue of damages will be resolved at a later stage.", "held": "The court accepted that the three notices were served on the plaintiff and were not directly used to repossess the unit. The dispute continues on whether the plaintiff surrendered possession or was unlawfully evicted, and final determinations on damages are reserved.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the plaintiff\u2019s tenancy was wrongfully terminated, whether she was unlawfully evicted, whether the plaintiff abandoned the property, and if the repossession was lawful under the terms of the tenancy agreement.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_5": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff argues she was excluded from the rented premises without consent and forced to hand over her keys, amounting to a wrongful eviction. The defendants assert that the plaintiff retained access through a Samsung access card and voluntarily relinquished possession. Both sides dispute the events of 22 May 2019 and the significance of the plaintiff\u2019s actions that evening.", "cases_referred": [ "Hsu Hsueh Hui v Foong Yook Kooi [2022] SGHC 108" ], "facts": "The plaintiff rented a studio unit from the defendants. The defendants served three notices in early May 2019 cautioning the plaintiff about her conduct and rent payments. On 22 May 2019, the plaintiff contended that she was locked out after the main door\u2019s access code was allegedly changed, while the defendants maintained she still had a Samsung access card. The plaintiff claimed the police took her keys and handed them to the fourth defendant, resulting in her alleged wrongful eviction. Prior to this, the defendants had invoked a Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) process, and the matter eventually proceeded before the High Court.", "final_status": "No final outcome is indicated in the provided text", "formatted_summary": "In this partial excerpt from a High Court case, the plaintiff alleges she was locked out of a rented studio unit and wrongfully evicted, while the defendants claim she retained the means of entry. The dispute centers on whether the plaintiff was truly denied access on 22 May 2019 and whether the tenancy was lawfully or unlawfully terminated. The court notes inconsistencies in the plaintiff\u2019s account, finding it likely that she possessed an access card. However, the final disposition of the case is not provided in the text.", "held": "The court found that the plaintiff more likely than not had a Samsung access card and could enter the unit, but the excerpt does not disclose the ultimate determination of liability or remedies.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the plaintiff was unlawfully locked out or voluntarily surrendered possession, and whether the tenancy was prematurely and wrongfully terminated on 22 May 2019.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_6": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff contended she was locked out of the Studio Unit and that the police forcibly removed her keys and card, resulting in her wrongful eviction. The defendants argued the plaintiff handed over the keys to a security guard, vacated the unit voluntarily, and thus indicated an intention to terminate the tenancy.", "cases_referred": [ "Hsu Hsueh Hui v Foong Yook Kooi [2022] SGHC 108" ], "facts": "The plaintiff and defendants were in a dispute over a tenancy for a Studio Unit, with the plaintiff alleging she was locked out and forcibly removed on 22 May 2019, while the defendants maintained she voluntarily gave up the premises. The police were called, and the plaintiff claimed that the police took her access cards and keys from her, whereas the defendants and the police disagreed. The plaintiff also alleged wrongful eviction and an inability to retrieve her belongings. Subsequent testimony from police officers did not corroborate the plaintiff\u2019s version, and the matter proceeded to this court for resolution of the factual disputes.", "final_status": "Dismissed", "formatted_summary": "In this dispute concerning a tenancy, the plaintiff claimed she was locked out of the Studio Unit and that the police forcibly took her keys, while the defendants argued she voluntarily handed over the keys and surrendered possession. The court found the plaintiff\u2019s version unsubstantiated, dismissed her claim, and held that she had given up the property willingly.", "held": "The court rejected the plaintiff\u2019s account, holding that she had voluntarily relinquished possession of the Studio Unit, and therefore her claim of forced eviction was not established. This decision clarifies the evidentiary burden on a plaintiff asserting wrongful eviction.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the plaintiff was wrongfully evicted, whether she voluntarily handed over her access cards and keys, and whether the defendants lawfully repossessed the Studio Unit.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_7": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff maintained that her possessions, including high-value jewelry, were left behind and locked within the unit. She relied on the photos\u2019 metadata and her payment records from 23 May 2019. The defendants questioned the plaintiff\u2019s credibility and the accuracy of the dates, pointing out the difficulty of altering metadata without specialized assistance and inconsistencies in the plaintiff\u2019s statements on her divorce mediation timeline.", "cases_referred": [], "facts": "The plaintiff claimed she left her belongings, including valuable jewelry, in a studio unit on the night of 22 May 2019. The defendants disputed this account. Photographs were taken of the property, and questions arose about the accuracy of their metadata (creation and modification dates). The plaintiff moved into the unit after leaving her former home following a divorce. She alleged that after handing over the keys and access cards late on 22 May 2019, her belongings remained inside. Procedurally, this dispute came before the court after evidence was gathered concerning the photographs and the plaintiff\u2019s statements on when her belongings were last seen in the unit.", "final_status": "No final status identified in the excerpt", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the court addresses factual questions about whether the plaintiff\u2019s belongings, particularly jewelry, remained in the studio unit after she handed over access rights on 22 May 2019. Photographic evidence and its metadata were scrutinized to ascertain when the images were taken. The court considered the plaintiff\u2019s inconsistent statements regarding the timeline of her jewelry but did not render a complete final determination in the provided text.", "held": "The court found it more likely than not that the photos were created on the indicated date but concluded they were not conclusive proof that the plaintiff\u2019s belongings were present on 22 May 2019. The plaintiff\u2019s evidence about her jewelry\u2019s location was undermined by inconsistencies, leaving the precise outcome unresolved in this excerpt.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the photographic metadata reliably proves that the plaintiff\u2019s belongings were still in the studio unit at the relevant time, and whether the plaintiff\u2019s testimony about her jewelry\u2019s timeline and location is credible.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_8": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff argues that her belongings were secured in the Studio Unit when she was allegedly locked out, as evidenced by her monetary transfer and communications with the defendants. She also asserts that stress from the eviction caused or exacerbated her health issues, leading to hospital expenses. The defendants contend that the Studio Unit was vacant, that the plaintiff had likely removed her belongings, and that her claim regarding the jewelry\u2019s presence is not supported by consistent testimony. They also question the link between her alleged heart condition and the eviction.", "cases_referred": [ "Hsu Hsueh Hui v Foong Yook Kooi [2022] SGHC 108" ], "facts": "The plaintiff asserts that she left her jewelry and other belongings in a rented studio unit (\u201cStudio Unit\u201d) following her divorce mediation. She moved these items among various locations before allegedly returning them to the Studio Unit. She later transferred an amount of $4600, claiming it related to disputed rental payments. At the time, she was involved in communications and emails with one of the defendants. She subsequently claims that she was evicted from the Studio Unit and that she incurred uninsured medical expenses after being admitted to a hospital due to stress. These events are recounted in the context of her lawsuit in the High Court.", "final_status": "Not indicated in the excerpt", "formatted_summary": "In this segment of the judgment, the court reviews the factual background concerning the plaintiff\u2019s allegations that she left her personal items, especially jewelry, at the Studio Unit and was later evicted. The plaintiff references stress-induced health issues and seeks reimbursement for medical expenses. The defendants dispute her account of leaving any belongings behind and deny the eviction\u2019s connection to her health claims. The court scrutinizes the plaintiff\u2019s statements for consistency and assesses whether her evidence is credible.", "held": "Not indicated in the excerpt", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the plaintiff\u2019s belongings, including her jewelry, remained in the Studio Unit at the relevant time, whether the eviction was justified or carried out wrongfully, and whether any connection existed between the plaintiff\u2019s medical condition and the conduct of the defendants are the central issues. The case also questions the credibility of the plaintiff\u2019s evidence regarding her claimed heart condition and her associated medical expenses.", "statutes": {} }, "chunk_9": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The plaintiff argued she was effectively evicted and that her medical issues were critical factors in the dispute. She claimed the defendants changed access codes and forced her out, relying on her own statements and letters to authorities. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff voluntarily vacated, alleging her claims about the medical condition and forced eviction were exaggerated. They also contended the security deposit could not be used for the final months\u2019 rent under the tenancy agreement.", "cases_referred": [ "Hsu Hsueh Hui v Foong Yook Kooi [2022] SGHC 108" ], "facts": "The plaintiff, who rented a studio unit from the defendants, claimed she was improperly evicted and cited medical concerns as reasons for her actions. She asserted that a doctor recommended heart stent surgery and that she had suffered a heart attack, but the Medical Report she provided did not support these assertions. She also wrote to various authorities alleging she was left homeless. However, evidence showed she stayed with a friend and the Medical Report did not back her claim of having had a heart attack. Procedurally, police were involved due to the dispute, and the matter proceeded to trial in the High Court.", "final_status": "Not provided in the excerpt", "formatted_summary": "In this portion of the decision, the court reviews the plaintiff\u2019s allegations surrounding her medical condition, her departure from the rented unit, and her claims that she was wrongfully evicted. Evidence indicated inconsistencies in the plaintiff\u2019s statements, especially regarding her purported heart stent surgery recommendation and a claimed heart attack. The plaintiff also described being left homeless, but it was shown she stayed with a friend. The court notes these discrepancies in assessing credibility. The text does not disclose the ultimate outcome or the court\u2019s conclusion on liability, focusing instead on factual inconsistencies and evidence from witnesses.", "held": "The court\u2019s specific holding is not stated in the excerpt provided.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "The core issues include whether the plaintiff was unlawfully evicted or voluntarily vacated the premises, whether the security deposit could offset rental dues, and the credibility of the plaintiff\u2019s claims regarding her medical condition and the tenancy arrangement.", "statutes": {} } }, "counsels": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The plaintiff rented a studio unit from the defendants under a tenancy beginning 18 July 2018, paying a security deposit and monthly rent. Relations deteriorated as the plaintiff sought to use the security deposit to cover final rental payments. The defendants served notices alleging breaches, and on 22 May 2019 the plaintiff claimed she was locked out when the door code was changed and her belongings remained inside. The police were called, and the plaintiff contended forced eviction and later referenced health issues stemming from the episode. The defendants maintained that the plaintiff voluntarily surrendered the keys, that no access code was altered, and that the premises were vacant. The dispute moved from initial notices and potential Small Claims Tribunals proceedings to the High Court of Singapore, with liability and damages addressed in separate stages.", "final_status": "Disposed with partial relief", "first_party": [ "1. Hsu Hsueh Hui (alias Jenny Hsu)" ], "grouped_statutes": {}, "held": "The court rejected the plaintiff\u2019s claims of wrongful eviction and detention, concluding that she voluntarily surrendered possession of the property. However, the defendants had to return the security deposit because no valid basis existed for withholding it.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the tenancy was wrongfully terminated", "whether the plaintiff was unlawfully evicted or voluntarily surrendered possession", "whether the plaintiff\u2019s belongings were wrongfully detained", "whether the security deposit could lawfully offset final rent", "whether the defendants\u2019 actions amounted to a breach of the tenancy agreement." ], "prayer": "", "reserved_date": "13.05.2022", "second_party": [ "1. Foong Yook Kooi", "2. Foong Khang Hoong", "3. Lim Eng Yok", "4. Foong Chiew Chieh" ], "statutes": {}, "statutes_headnotes": {} }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "The dispute arose from a tenancy agreement for a studio unit. The plaintiff claimed she was locked out and that her belongings remained inside, alleging wrongful eviction and detention of property. The defendants argued she voluntarily relinquished the unit and that no codes were changed. The court found that she had vacated the premises on her own accord, negating her wrongful eviction claim, but required the defendants to return her security deposit as they lacked grounds to retain it." } }