Arul Chandran v William J. Gartshore: Breach of Contract & Unlawful Removal from Tanglin Club Committee

In Arul Chandran v William J. Gartshore, the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the unlawful removal of Arul Chandran from his position as Vice-President and member of the general committee of the Tanglin Club. Chandran, the plaintiff, sued William J. Gartshore and others, the defendants, after they voted to remove him from his position. The court, presided over by G P Selvam J, ruled in favor of Chandran, declaring his removal wrongful and awarding nominal damages. The claim was based on breach of contract.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Arul Chandran sued William J. Gartshore for unlawful removal from the Tanglin Club committee. The court ruled in Chandran's favor, awarding nominal damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Arul ChandranPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
William J. GartshoreDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Colin A. TaylorDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Andre C. BouvronDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Chim Hou YanDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Chan Kong ThoeDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost
Kenneth Chew Keng SengDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
G P SelvamJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Andre ArulArul Chew & Partners
Christopher DanielAllen & Gledhill
Michael HwangAllen & Gledhill

4. Facts

  1. Arul Chandran was the Vice-President of the Tanglin Club.
  2. The defendants voted to remove Arul Chandran from his position.
  3. The plaintiff claimed his removal was unlawful.
  4. The defendants believed the plaintiff acted improperly in a financial transaction.
  5. The Club lost nothing by the plaintiff's actions.
  6. The Law Society found no impropriety in the plaintiff's conduct.
  7. The defendants consented to judgment against themselves, declaring the removal wrongful.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Arul Chandran v William J. Gartshore and Others, Suit 519/1999, [2000] SGHC 34

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Arul Chandran became Vice-President of the Tanglin Club.
Arul Chandran was removed from office at a meeting of the general committee.
Trial commenced.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the defendants breached the contract of membership by wrongfully removing the plaintiff from his position.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1909] AC 488
      • [1999] 3 SLR 630
      • [1999] 4 SLR 560
  2. Damages for Mental Distress
    • Outcome: The court held that general damages for mental distress are not recoverable in this breach of contract case.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1909] AC 488
      • [1999] 3 SLR 630
      • [1999] 4 SLR 560

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that removal was unlawful
  2. General damages for mental distress
  3. Damages for damage to reputation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Breach of Contract
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Graeme McGuire v John RasmussenHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 180SingaporeCited in relation to a previous case involving the plaintiff and other committee members.
Addis v Gramophone Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1909] AC 488England and WalesCited as a basis for rejecting a claim for general damages for mental distress in a contract case.
Haron Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic AssociationHigh CourtYes[ 1992] 1 SLR 18SingaporeCited in relation to the rejection of a claim for general damages for mental distress in a club case.
Hua Khian Ceramics Tiles Supplies Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 884SingaporeCited in relation to the refusal of a claim for general damages for injury to reputation in a breach of contract case.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang HongHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR 630SingaporeCited in relation to the rule that the law will not award general damages for mental distress when damages are to be assessed on a breach of contract basis.
Lonrho v Fayed (No 5)English Court of AppealYes[1993] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited in relation to the principle that damages for injury to reputation and injury to feelings, though recoverable in an action for defamation, could not be recovered in an action for conspiracy.
Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus LtdQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1957] 2 QB 1England and WalesCited for the principle that mental suffering caused by grief, fear, anguish and the like is not assessable.
Malik v Bank of Credit And Commerce International SAHouse of LordsYes[1998] AC 20England and WalesCited in relation to the principle that financial loss resulting from damage to reputation must be proved in contract cases.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction v ForsythHouse of LordsYes[1996] AC 344England and WalesCited in relation to the principle that the court will not award damages which would be grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be obtained.
Cox v Philips Industries LtdHigh CourtYes[1976] 1 WLR 638England and WalesCited by the plaintiff as a case where general damages would be awarded for mental distress arising from breach of contract if that was within the contemplation of the parties, but was later overruled.
Tippett v International Typographical UnionOntario High Court of JusticeYes[1976] 71 DLR (3D) 146CanadaCited by the plaintiff as a case where general damages within reasonable bounds were recoverable for loss of reputation and mental distress arising from breach of contract, but was not followed by the court.
Brown v Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners of PoliceOntario High Court of JusticeYes(1982) 136 DLR (3d) 49CanadaCited by the plaintiff as a case stating that damages are recoverable for mental suffering flowing from a breach of contract if such damage is within the contemplation of the parties, but was not followed by the court.
Whelan v Waitaii Meats LtdNew Zealand High CourtYes[1991] 2 NZLR 74New ZealandCited by the plaintiff as a case where the New Zealand High Court awarded general damages in a wrongful dismissal case, but was not followed by the court.
Watts v MorrowCourt of AppealYes[1991] 1 WLR 1421England and WalesCited for the principle that a contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party.
Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan YewCourt of AppealYes[1999] 4 SLR 560SingaporeCited for the principle that general damages are not recoverable for mental distress arising from breach of contract.
Wilson v United Counties Bank LtdHouse of LordsYes[1920] AC 102England and WalesCited by the plaintiff as a case where the House of Lords itself had departed from Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd, but was not followed by the court.
Jarvis v Swans Tours LtdCourt of AppealYes[1973] 1 All ER 71England and WalesCited in relation to the principle that general damages are not recoverable for mental distress arising from breach of contract.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Tanglin Club
  • Vice-President
  • General Committee
  • Breach of Contract
  • Unlawful Removal
  • Nominal Damages
  • Mental Distress
  • Membership
  • Insurance Claim

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • club
  • removal
  • damages
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract75
Contract Law70
Club Law60
Litigation40
Defamation30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Club Governance
  • Damages