https://mothership.sg/2026/07/night-shift-nurse-aircon-claim/

Night-shift nurse wins S$1,536 claim after HDB landlord sought to restrict daytime aircon use

Under the agreement, the tenant was allowed to use the air-conditioner for up to eight hours a day, regardless of the time of day.

Chloe Loh

July 09, 2026, 04:44 PM

Photo from Canva.

A night-shift nurse who rented a room in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat has won a claim against her landlord after a dispute over air-conditioning use escalated into harassment and ultimately led to the early termination of her tenancy.

According to grounds of decision released on Jul 7, the tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the nurse S$1,536.47, including the return of an S$800 security deposit that had been withheld.

Air-conditioner usage arrangement

The claimant, a Malaysian national, worked as a nurse at a public hospital in Singapore and was a former tenant of the respondent.

Although the respondent did not live in the five-room HDB flat, her daughter and son-in-law occupied the master bedroom.

The remaining two furnished common bedrooms and a study room were rented out to tenants.

From September 2024, the claimant rented one of the common bedrooms under a one-year tenancy agreement.

Another Malaysian nurse, who was also her friend, rented the other common bedroom.

As both nurses worked rotating night shifts, they negotiated an additional term in their tenancy agreements allowing them to use the air-conditioner for up to eight hours a day, regardless of the time of day.

This meant they were not restricted to using the air-conditioner only at night..

Landlord's daughter was unhappy with the arrangement

According to the judgement, the landlord's daughter took issue with two aspects of the tenancy.

First, she was unhappy that both tenants occasionally brought their boyfriends to their rooms without first obtaining permission from, or providing their particulars to the landlord.

Second, although each tenant stayed within the agreed daily eight-hour air-conditioning limit, their differing work schedules meant the air-conditioner sometimes ran for up to 16 hours a day.

For example, one nurse would sleep during the day after completing a night shift (while using the air-con), while the other would use the air-conditioner in the evening after working a regular shift.

As a result, the arrangement led to higher electricity bills, which the landlord's daughter paid, and she became increasingly upset.

She also frequently shouted at the tenants in common areas and disrupted their rest by switching off the air-conditioner's main power supply while they were sleeping after overnight shifts.

Tipping point

The dispute came to a head on Nov. 1, 2024, during a heated discussion between the two tenants and the landlord's daughter.

According to the judgment, the daughter gave the nurses three options: Increase their monthly rent from S$800 to S$1,000 while continuing to use the air-conditioner during the day; continue paying S$800 but limit air-conditioning use to between 11pm and 7am; or move out.

She also warned that if they did not make a decision, she would harass them daily till they did.

The two nurses subsequently informed the landlord that they would vacate the flat by the end of November 2024.

After they moved out, the landlord withheld both their S$800 security deposits, prompting each of them to file separate claims in the Small Claims Tribunal.

Earlier claim by other tenant

The claimant's friend had succeeded in an earlier claim to recover her deposit.

In that case, the landlord counterclaimed for an additional S$299 on top of the S$800 security deposit, alleging that the claimant's friend had damaged a bedframe.

She alleged that the the claimant's friend was "very big and heavy and plump", estimating that she weighed about 150kg.

However, the magistrate rejected the claim, calling the landlord's description and estimate of the tenant's weight "grossly inaccurate".

Landlord absent from hearings

In the present case, both parties represented themselves.

The landlord failed to attend the first hearing in August 2025, claiming she had fractured her leg.

Although the medical certificate she submitted did not satisfy court requirements, the magistrate adjourned the hearing to give her another opportunity to attend.

However, she failed to appear again on Sep. 30, 2025.

After hearing evidence from the claimant and her witness, the tribunal ruled in the claimant's favour.

A week later, the landlord applied to have the judgment set aside — she claimed she had suffered broken bones and was unable to walk.

She also sought permission to attend the hearing via Zoom, but failed.

The magistrate had rejected those arguments after finding that the landlord had known about the hearing date, adding that she had repeatedly been informed of the type of medical certificate required to excuse her attendance yet failed to produce one.

He also found that she was physically capable of participating in the proceedings.

“It was more likely than not that she was physically able to attend the trial... but chose not to."

“The irresistible inference was that the respondent was selective in her attendance of judicial proceedings – present when it suited her, and absent when it did not," he wrote.

The magistrate also dismissed the landlord’s explanation that she did not know how to ask her doctor for a certificate excusing her from attending court.

The landlord had told the tribunal: “Every time I do not know how to tell the doctor this. It is just an MC issued by a doctor and I don’t know how to say that I was unable to walk. I don’t know how to tell the doctor that I was required to attend court proceedings. I don’t know everything."

The explanation is self-contradictory, said the magistrate, saying that it "[rang] hollow" and further noting that the landlord had been able to explain exactly those points during the hearing.

"If she could articulate those very things before the tribunal, there was no reason why she could not have said the same to her doctor."

Found no reason for landlord to withhold security deposit

The magistrate ultimately found that none of the landlord's reasons justified withholding the security deposit.

The landlord had alleged that the claimant improperly brought her boyfriend to the room and had committed immoral acts "by engaging in private activities, e,g. [sic] sexual intimacy, behind closed doors with an [sic] young male visitor".

She also claimed the claimant had exceeded her agreed air-conditioning usage and had terminated the tenancy prematurely.

However, the magistrate found there was no contractual requirement for the tenant to obtain permission before having visitors, and no evidence that she exceeded the agreed daily air-conditioning limit.

There was also no clause allowing the landlord to forfeit the security deposit because the tenancy ended early.

He also rejected the landlord’s argument that increased electricity bills entitled her to keep the deposit.

"The respondent bore the risk of any fluctuation in the bills as part of the fixed monthly rent of S$800. That was the bargain she struck – and it cut both ways," he wrote.

“If electricity usage or prices fell and the bills decreased, the respondent would have been the beneficiary. She could not therefore look to the security deposit when the arrangement did not suit her."

In dismissing the landlord's application to set aside the judgment, the magistrate said the tribunal should be "most reluctant" to do so where a party had deliberately chosen not to attend court.

He added that requiring the claimant and her witness to testify all over again would not be fair, especially since the claim concerned a relatively modest sum and the need for a retrial arose solely due to the landlord’s deliberate absence.

The magistrate also described the landlord as having an "airy disregard" for the trial dates that were scheduled and that her attitude was "marked by a conspicuous lack of respect for the judicial process".

Global Amulet

Search This Blog