JJA v JJB
Key facts
| Court | Small Claims Tribunals |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Jared Kang Chern Wey |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Landlord and Tenant |
Source: [2026] SGSCT 21, Small Claims Tribunals, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
JJA v JJB [2026] SGSCT 21 was decided in the Small Claims Tribunals by Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey on 14 July 2026. A corporate tenant under a 24-month tenancy at $5,600 per month sought return of its $11,200 security deposit and $3,180 for two replacement air-conditioning units. The landlord retained the deposit after active subterranean termites were found at handover and counterclaimed $18,912, including $24,854.80 for 135 days of lost rent. The issues were whether the tenant should have reported signs of damage to the parquet floor and what loss that failure caused. The Tribunal assessed the incremental damage at $1,000, dismissed the lost rent and the air-conditioning claim, and ordered payment of $10,200 to the tenant.
[2026] SGSCT 21 explained
JJA v JJB ([2026] SGSCT 21) is a Singapore judgment decided by the SGSCT on 14 July 2026. It is categorised under Contract and Landlord and Tenant. 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 21 about?
JJA v JJB ([2026] SGSCT 21) is a SGSCT decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Remedies — Damages”, “Landlord and Tenant — Covenants — Repair”, and “Contract — Contractual terms — Implied terms”, 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 21 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 Tribunal decided a dispute between a corporate tenant, JJA, and its landlord, JJB, over a tenancy at a monthly rent of $5,600 and a security deposit of $11,200. Active termites were found after handover, and the landlord retained the whole deposit and counterclaimed $18,912. The Tribunal found the tenant's failure to report floor deterioration caused incremental damage of $1,000, dismissed the lost rent claim and the air-conditioning claim of $3,180, and ordered the landlord to pay $10,200 by 28 July 2026.
What was JJA v JJB [2026] SGSCT 21 about?
A corporate tenant claimed its $11,200 security deposit and air-conditioning costs from its landlord, who retained the deposit after termites were found at handover. The issue was whether the tenant's failure to report floor deterioration caused the landlord's loss.
How much did the Tribunal order the landlord to pay in [2026] SGSCT 21?
The Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $10,200 by 28 July 2026, allowing the landlord to retain $1,000 of the deposit. The air-conditioning claim and the landlord's counterclaim for further payment were dismissed.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (14)
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGSCT 21)