Malcomson v Mehta: Harassment, Trespass, Nuisance & Injunctions
In Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin JC, granted judgment to the plaintiffs, Malcomson and Zerity, against the defendant, Mehta, for trespass, nuisance, and harassment. The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctions to restrain Mehta from further committing such acts. The court recognized a tort of harassment and issued injunctions against Mehta to prevent further acts of trespass, nuisance, and harassment. The court also ordered Mehta to pay the costs of the plaintiffs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Malcomson sued Mehta for trespass, nuisance, and harassment. The court granted injunctions against Mehta for his actions, recognizing a tort of harassment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Zerity | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Naresh Kumar Mehta | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| KM Pillai | Allen & Gledhill |
| Bianca Cheo | Allen & Gledhill |
4. Facts
- Mehta resigned from Zerity after less than three months of employment.
- After his resignation, Mehta made persistent calls and sent emails to Zerity's directors and employees.
- Mehta appeared unannounced at Zerity's premises to demand his job back.
- Mehta sent emails leveling accusations at Zerity's employees for giving him a bad reference.
- Mehta contacted Zerity's solicitor under a false name.
- Mehta made demands for reinstatement with specific terms.
- Mehta trespassed on Malcomson's residence and obtained his mobile phone number from the maid.
- Mehta delivered a greeting card to Malcomson and his wife close to the anniversary of their son's death.
5. Formal Citations
- Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta, Suit 687/2001 , SIC 1575/2001, [2001] SGHC 308
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mehta commenced employment in Zerity as an Assistant Vice-President. | |
| Mehta sent an e-mail to Malcomson tendering his resignation. | |
| Zerity accepted Mehta`s resignation with immediate effect and waived the contractual requirement for Mehta to serve a two-month notice period. | |
| Plaintiffs took out the writ in this action claiming damages for trespass, nuisance and harassment. | |
| Plaintiffs applied in SIC 1266/2001 for an interim injunction prohibiting Mehta from the same three acts until trial of the action. | |
| Hearing of the SIC. The court granted the interim injunction. | |
| Plaintiffs filed the statement of claim. | |
| Statement of claim was served on Mehta. | |
| Plaintiffs filed SIC 1575/2001 to apply for judgment in default of defence. | |
| First hearing of the application for judgment in default of defence. | |
| Mr Pillai applied for and obtained leave to amend the statement of claim. The amended statement of claim was served on Mehta. | |
| Plaintiffs applied again for judgment in default of defence, this time to the amended statement of claim. | |
| Court gives its decision in writing, allowing the application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Harassment
- Outcome: The court recognized a tort of harassment and granted injunctions to restrain the defendant from continuing such acts.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1993] QB 727
- [1995] 4 All ER 802
- [1997] AC 655
- Trespass
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had established the bases for trespass in respect of the residence and the premises.
- Category: Substantive
- Nuisance
- Outcome: The court found that the persistent faxes, telephone calls and e-mail retrieved at either location would interfere with the plaintiffs` use and enjoyment of the land, constituting the tort of nuisance.
- Category: Substantive
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court considered the application for judgment in default of defence under Order 19 rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Injunctions
9. Cause of Actions
- Trespass
- Nuisance
- Harassment
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Tort Law
- Injunctions
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patel v Patel | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 FLR 179 | England | Discusses whether an injunction can be issued in common-law actions based upon an alleged tort where an actual tortious act has been or is likely to be committed. Doubted regarding the position that there is no tort of harassment. |
| Khorasandjian v Bush | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] QB 727 | England | The court doubted the position taken in Patel v Patel that there is no tort of harassment. Overruled in Hunter v Canary Wharf. |
| Burris v Azadani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 4 All ER 802 | England | The court doubted the position taken in Patel v Patel that there is no tort of harassment. |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf | House of Lords | Yes | [1997] AC 655 | England | Discusses the tort of private nuisance and harassment. Overruled the decision in Khorasandjian v Bush. Recognizes that a tort of harassment has now received statutory recognition. |
| Motherwell v Motherwell | Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court | Yes | [1976] 73 DLR (3d) 62 | Canada | Discusses whether a wife, who has no interest in the matrimonial home where she lives, is nevertheless able to sue in private nuisance in respect of interference with her enjoyment of that home. Authority undermined in Hunter v Canary Wharf. |
| Foster v Warblington Urban District Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1906] 1 KB 648 | England | Discusses the distinction between one who is merely present and occupancy of a substantial nature, and that in the latter case the occupier was entitled to sue in private nuisance. Misunderstood in Motherwell v Motherwell. |
| Wilkinson v Downton | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1897] 2 QB 57 | England | Established that false words or verbal threats calculated to cause, and uttered with the knowledge that they are likely to cause, and actually causing physical injury to the person to whom they are uttered are actionable. |
| Janvier v Sweeney | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1919] 2 KB 316 | England | Approved and applied Wilkinson v Downton and held that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff in damages for nervous shock caused by their intentional act. |
| Arul Chandran v Gartshore | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 446 | Singapore | Suggests that mental distress is not actionable. The court in Malcomson v Mehta considers that the statement in respect of tort is obiter because the question before the court in that case involved damages for mental distress in a breach of contract situation. |
| Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas | Privy Council | Yes | [1888] 13 App Cas 222 | England | Case of doubtful authority. Distinguished in Wilkinson v Downton on the grounds that the Victorian Rlys case did not involve any element of wilful wrong. |
| Behrens v Bertram Mills Circus Ltd | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1957] 2 QB 1 | England | States the general principle embedded in the common law that mental suffering caused by grief, fear, anguish and the like is not assessable. |
| Malone v Laskey | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1907] 2 KB 141 | England | Cited as a decision inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's decision in Khorasandjian v Bush. |
| Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 All ER 65 | England | Cited in relation to the rule which excludes compensation for mere distress, inconvenience or discomfort in actions based on negligence. |
| Fine Robert v McLardy Eileen May | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1998] EWCA 3003 | England | Comments on the absence of a tort of interference with privacy and the imminent incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 19 rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 13 r 6(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
| Sections 13A | Singapore |
| Section 13B | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Harassment
- Trespass
- Nuisance
- Injunction
- Emotional Distress
- Course of Conduct
- Wrongful Entry
- Unsolicited Communication
- Mobile Phone
- SMS Messages
15.2 Keywords
- harassment
- trespass
- nuisance
- injunction
- tort
- emotional distress
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Torts | 90 |
| Harassment | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Nuisance | 70 |
| Trespass | 65 |
| Injunctions | 60 |
| Negligence | 55 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Evidence | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Harassment
- Civil Procedure
- Nuisance
- Trespass
- Injunctions