# Cubik Penthouse Lawsuit: Tenant Owes $31,700 Rent Despite Defects

- **Source:** Stacked Homes
- **Published:** 2026-09-08T08:26:10.000Z
- **Author:** Sihan Chia
- **Original:** https://stackedhomes.com/landlord-sued-84-5k-over-unpaid-rent-the-tenant-blamed-property-defects-what-court-decided/
- **Topics:** Private Residential, Government & Policy

## Featured rationale

The ruling signals that property defects may not remove contractual rent obligations, potentially encouraging landlords and tenants to document repairs, access arrangements and termination procedures carefully.

## AI summary

The court ordered Cubik tenant Cocomo to pay EGD $31,703 in rental arrears plus 10% annual interest, despite defects and breaches by both parties.

## Original article

A dispute between the owner and landlord of a penthouse at Cubik, a boutique condo at 81 Lorong K Telok Kurau, and a recent corporate tenant boiled over when both parties contested competing claims in court. This is an interesting case for landlords and tenants, especially in a contentious situation where communication appears to have broken down.

In this case, the owner of the 2,033 sq ft duplex penthouse is a company named EG Development (EGD). It sued a corporate tenant, Our Cocomo (Cocomo), and its director, Won Shi Lin Yura, for $84,584 in damages.

According to the case files, Won is the sole shareholder and a director of Cocomo, and was listed as an occupier of the penthouse at the time. The damages claimed by EGD included $46,296 in unpaid rent and over $38,000 for rectification costs and breach of maintenance obligations.

The duplex penthouse in this case is one of the largest units in the freehold development, and the unit comes with its own private pool. Completed in 2011 by EGD, the District 15 property consists of 24 units.

But Cocomo and Won countersued, claiming the landlord failed to fix severe water seepage and electrical issues, causing parts of the unit to be uninhabitable and damaging luxury items worth around $66,000. They also claimed $40,000 for stress and inconvenience.

How did water seepage escalate the dispute into a lawsuit?

Initially, the penthouse was leased to Cocomo for 12 months, starting from 31 May 2023, with a monthly rent of $8,888. The lease was renewed for another 12-month term from 31 May of the following year, at a monthly rent of $7,800.

But EGD claimed Cocomo breached the second tenancy agreement by failing to pay $7,800 monthly rent from 31 July 2024. On 13 August 2024, EGD demanded payment of the outstanding rent with interest within one day, as well as demanded back possession of the penthouse by 19 August 2024.

However, Cocomo did not comply, and EGD claimed it had the right to end the tenancy and take back the property. EGD also claimed “double rent” under the Civil Law Act 1909, amounting to $15,600 per month from 20 August 2024 until Cocomo left.

But it didn’t just stop at unpaid rent. The landlord also alleged breaches relating to access for pool maintenance. During the first tenancy agreement, Cocomo allegedly denied access on 12 occasions to the unit’s private pool despite notice, resulting in a clogged pool discharge pipe and hefty plumber costs.

All of this racked up, and total damages came up to $84,584, comprising unpaid rent, rectification and repair costs, based on EDG’s estimates. The landlord argued that its tenant failed to properly maintain the penthouse, and sought claims against Won, as Cocomo’s director and occupier of the unit, for breach of duty of care.

On its part, Cocomo and Won denied the allegations, stating that EGD had represented pool maintenance as optional. They claimed they could decline the service because maintenance occurred on Wednesday mornings when Yura was usually at work. They said EGD only insisted on regular maintenance from April 2024.

Here’s how the dispute escalated

Faced with the allegations, Won claimed that she was entitled to tenancy agreement protections. She also claimed EGD owed her a landlord-occupier duty of care to ensure the unit remained safe and secure and was free from water seepage and electrical defects.

She said that by failing to address severe and persistent water seepage during the tenancy, EGD had breached these obligations. The case files indicate that she first highlighted water leakage issues in the master toilet to EGD’s representative via Whatsapp messages.

A repair appointment was fixed on 27 November 2023. But on 18 December 2023, Yura found the master toilet and swimming pool were unusable again. The downstairs neighbour also complained the next day that a toilet in the penthouse unit was leaking into his unit.

There was widespread seepage on that day, which flooded the first floor. As a result, Won’s daughter could not use her bedroom, and the flooring for the first floor was also damaged. Won eventually vacated the unit on 9 November 2024.

Do property defects make it acceptable to not pay rent?

When the case was brought to court, Cocomo admitted that rent was unpaid from 31 July 2024 but claimed their right to offset amounts arising from EGD’s alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement.

The company disputed that EGD’s 13 August 2024 letter exercised the right of re-entry or gave them the right to terminate the lease on 20 August 2024. It argued that any double rent should be reduced to account for existing defects in the property that EGD had failed to rectify.

Cocomo claimed that as the landlord, EGD was required under the tenancy agreements to provide the following:

quiet enjoyment of the property

maintain the roof, structure, walls, floors, wiring and pipes in good condition

ensure the property was fit for habitation

provide adequate security, including CCTV and a security post

The company further claimed that any amount owing should be offset against the $8,888 security deposit, while Won continued to deny breaching any duty of care owed to EGD.

One of the arguments brought up to District Judge Sia Aik Kor, the judge presiding over this case, was whether the tenants in this case could claim damages for personal belongings.

So, in their countersuit, Cocomo sought to claim consequential damages for Won’s luxury goods that were in the penthouse, as damages suffered indirectly due to EGD’s breach. The affected items included a Richard Mille RM 67-01 White Gold with Diamonds worth up to $260,000, a F.P. Journe Elegante with Diamonds worth around $135,000 and a Cartier Love Bangle worth around $45,000.

The estimated diminished value of the luxury goods due to damage to the packaging and authenticity certificates was in the range of $152,000 to $178,000, according to Angela Ng, a luxury goods expert brought in to testify by Cocomo and Won.

But in her judgment on September 1 this year, District Judge Sia Aik Kor rejected Cocomo’s arguments regarding damage to Yura’s personal belongings. She concluded that Cocomo had not shown that it suffered, or would suffer, any actual loss arising from the damage to Won’s personal belongings.

In short, the judge stated that because Won and Cocomo were closely connected, Cocomo could not establish that it had a separate legal or financial interest in Won’s personal property. The Court therefore did not accept Cocomo’s claim for compensation in respect of those belongings.

So, what did the court decide?

The judgment published on Sept 1 noted that while EGD has a duty of care towards their tenant, it is also the tenant’s responsibility to pay rent, since it remains part of the contractual obligation.

Thus, District Judge Sia ordered Cocomo to pay $31,703 to EGD in rental arrears, with interest at 10% per annum on the amounts payable. This was offset against the security deposit of $8,888 held by EGD.

The total unpaid rent of $31,703.22 comprised $20,129.03 for 31 July to 17 October 2024, including $15,600 for 31 July to 29 September and $4,529.03 for 30 September to 17 October; and $11,574.19 in double rent for 18 October to 9 November 2024, calculated at $15,600 monthly for 23 days.

In addition, Cocomo was also ordered to pay $340 to EGD, who in turn was ordered to pay Cocomo and Won $10,992.29 and $1,000, respectively, as damages. This is because Cocomo and Won had raised that EGD’s contractual termination and notice were insufficient to end the tenancy and contended that forfeiture only occurred upon commencement and service of the originating claim, meaning double rent should run only from 18 October 2024.

Overall, the judgment reflected that both landlord and tenant had breached their respective obligations, with the Court ultimately awarding significantly less than the amounts claimed by either side.

It also goes to show that in a situation where both parties are liable to some extent, the outcome will likely be based on what was agreed upon in the lease.

Based on what we read about this case, the judgement for the suit centred on who had breached their contractual obligations in the lease. Whether it’s about a rental security deposit, signing a lease, or simply understanding what a standard tenancy agreement entails, both tenant and landlord need to recognise and abide by the implications of signing a lease.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### Cubik顶层公寓诉讼：尽管存在缺陷，租户仍欠新币31,700元租金

一名房东就未付租金及违反维修义务向租户索赔新币84,500元，租户则就渗水、电路故障及价值新币66,000元的奢侈品受损提出反诉，法院判令双方均须还款。

位于德乐古劳路K巷81号（81 Lorong K Telok Kurau）精品公寓Cubik的顶层单位业主兼房东，与近期一名公司租户发生纠纷，双方在法庭上就相互索赔展开攻防。对房东与租户而言，这是一起颇具参考价值的案件，尤其是在沟通似乎已经破裂的对立局面中。

本案中，这套2,033平方英尺复式顶层公寓的业主是一家名为EG Development（EGD）的公司。该公司起诉公司租户Our Cocomo（Cocomo）及其董事Won Shi Lin Yura，索赔新币84,584元损害赔偿。

根据案卷，Won是Cocomo的唯一股东兼董事，当时被列为该顶层公寓的占用者。EGD索赔的损害包括新币46,296元未付租金，以及超过新币38,000元的修复费用和违反维修义务的赔偿。

本案中的复式顶层公寓是该永久地契项目中最大的单位之一，并配有私人泳池。该第15区物业由EGD于2011年竣工，共有24个单位。

但Cocomo和Won提出反诉，指房东未能修复严重渗水及电路问题，导致单位部分区域无法居住，并损坏了价值约新币66,000元的奢侈品。他们还索赔新币40,000元，作为精神压力与不便的赔偿。

渗水问题如何把纠纷升级成诉讼？

起初，该顶层公寓租给Cocomo，租期12个月，自2023年5月31日起，月租新币8,888元。租约自次年5月31日起再续12个月，月租新币7,800元。

但EGD声称，Cocomo自2024年7月31日起未支付每月新币7,800元的租金，违反了第二份租约。2024年8月13日，EGD要求在一天内支付欠租及利息，并要求在2024年8月19日前交还顶层公寓。

然而Cocomo并未遵从，EGD主张其有权终止租约并收回物业。EGD还依据《1909年民事法》（Civil Law Act 1909）索赔「双倍租金」，自2024年8月20日起至Cocomo迁出为止，每月新币15,600元。

但事情并不仅止于欠租。房东还指称对方在泳池维修进入权方面违约。在第一份租约期间，Cocomo据称在已获通知的情况下，仍12次拒绝进入该单位的私人泳池，导致泳池排水管堵塞，并产生高额水管维修费用。

各项索赔累加后，按EDG的估算，损害赔偿总额达新币84,584元，包括欠租、修复及维修费用。房东认为租户未能妥善维护顶层公寓，并就违反注意义务向身为Cocomo董事及单位占用者的Won提出索赔。

Cocomo和Won则否认指控，称EGD曾表示泳池维护是可选择的。他们声称可以拒绝该项服务，因为维护安排在周三上午，而Yura通常在上班。他们说，EGD从2024年4月起才坚持要求定期维护。

纠纷是如何升级的

面对指控，Won主张她享有租约保护。她还声称，EGD作为房东对占用者负有注意义务，须确保单位安全稳妥，且没有渗水和电路缺陷。

她表示，EGD在租期内未能处理严重且持续的渗水问题，已违反上述义务。案卷显示，她最初通过Whatsapp信息，向EGD代表反映主卫漏水问题。

维修预约定在2023年11月27日。但到了2023年12月18日，Yura发现主卫和泳池再次无法使用。楼下邻居次日也投诉，顶层公寓的一间厕所漏水渗入其单位。

当天出现大范围渗水，淹没了一楼。结果，Won的女儿无法使用卧室，一楼地板也受损。Won最终于2024年11月9日搬离该单位。

物业存在缺陷，是否就可以不付租金？

案件提交法庭后，Cocomo承认自2024年7月31日起未付租金，但主张有权以EGD涉嫌违反租约所产生的金额作抵销。

该公司质疑EGD于2024年8月13日的信函是否行使了重新进入权，或赋予其在2024年8月20日终止租约的权利。该公司主张，任何双倍租金都应因EGD未能修复的现有物业缺陷而予以扣减。

Cocomo声称，作为房东，EGD根据租约须提供以下内容：

安静享用该物业

保持屋顶、结构、墙壁、地板、电线和管道状况良好

确保物业适合居住

提供足够安保，包括闭路电视（CCTV）和保安亭

该公司进一步主张，任何欠款应以新币8,888元的保证金抵销，而Won则继续否认违反了对EGD负有的任何注意义务。

提交给主审本案的地方法庭法官Sia Aik Kor的论点之一，是本案租户能否就个人财物索赔损害赔偿。

因此，在反诉中，Cocomo试图就Won放在顶层公寓内的奢侈品索赔间接损失，作为因EGD违约而间接遭受的损害。受影响物品包括一枚价值高达新币260,000元的Richard Mille RM 67-01白金镶钻腕表、一枚价值约新币135,000元的F.P. Journe Elegante镶钻腕表，以及一只价值约新币45,000元的Cartier Love手镯。

据Cocomo和Won请来作证的奢侈品专家Angela Ng称，由于包装和真品证书受损，这些奢侈品的估计贬值幅度在新币152,000元至178,000元之间。

但在今年9月1日的判决中，地方法庭法官Sia Aik Kor驳回了Cocomo关于Yura个人财物受损的主张。她认定，Cocomo未能证明其因Won个人财物受损而已经或将会遭受任何实际损失。

简言之，法官指出，由于Won与Cocomo关系密切，Cocomo无法证明其对Won的个人财产拥有独立的法律或财务利益。因此，法院不接受Cocomo就这些财物提出的赔偿请求。

那么，法院如何判决？

9月1日公布的判决指出，虽然EGD对租户负有注意义务，但支付租金仍是租户的责任，因为这属于合同义务的一部分。

因此，地方法庭法官Sia裁定Cocomo向EGD支付新币31,703元租金欠款，应付款项按年利率10%计息。该金额以EGD持有的新币8,888元保证金抵销。

未付租金总额新币31,703.22元包括：2024年7月31日至10月17日的新币20,129.03元（其中7月31日至9月29日为新币15,600元，9月30日至10月17日为新币4,529.03元）；以及2024年10月18日至11月9日的双倍租金新币11,574.19元，按每月新币15,600元计算23天。

此外，Cocomo还被裁定向EGD支付新币340元；EGD则被裁定分别向Cocomo和Won支付新币10,992.29元和新币1,000元作为损害赔偿。这是因为Cocomo和Won提出，EGD的合同终止及通知不足以结束租约，并主张只有在提起并送达原诉状后没收才发生，因此双倍租金应仅从2024年10月18日起计算。

总体而言，判决反映出房东与租户均违反了各自义务，法院最终判给双方的金额都远低于各自的索赔额。

这也表明，在双方都有一定责任的情况下，结果很可能取决于租约中约定的内容。

根据我们对本案的阅读，该诉讼的判决核心在于谁违反了租约中的合同义务。无论是租金保证金、签署租约，还是仅仅理解标准租约意味着什么，租户与房东都必须认识到并遵守签署租约所带来的影响。