Malcomson v Mehta: Tort of Harassment, Nuisance, and Trespass
In Nicholas Hugh Bertram Malcomson and Zerity Pte Ltd v Naresh Kumar Mehta, the High Court of Singapore, on 2001-10-12, granted judgment for the plaintiffs, Malcomson and Zerity Pte Ltd, and issued injunctions against the defendant, Mehta, for trespass, nuisance, and harassment. The plaintiffs brought claims for trespass at Malcomson’s residence, nuisance by telephone at Malcomson’s residence and Zerity’s office, and harassment of Malcomson. The court recognized harassment as a potential tort and granted the injunctions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs; injunctions granted against the Defendant.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court granted injunctions against Mehta for trespass, nuisance, and harassment, recognizing harassment as a potential tort in Singapore.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naresh Kumar Mehta | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| Nicholas Hugh Bertram Malcomson | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Zerity Pte Ltd (formerly known as First-E Asia Pte Ltd) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bianca Cheo | Allen & Gledhill |
| K M Pillai | Allen & Gledhill |
4. Facts
- Mehta was employed by Zerity but resigned after less than three months.
- After resigning, Mehta made persistent calls and sent emails to Zerity's directors.
- Mehta appeared unannounced at Zerity's office demanding his job back.
- Mehta sent emails accusing Zerity employees of giving him a bad reference.
- Mehta contacted Zerity's solicitor posing as someone else.
- Mehta trespassed on Malcomson's residence and obtained his mobile phone number.
- Mehta sent a greeting card to Malcomson and his wife close to the anniversary of their son's death.
5. Formal Citations
- Nicholas Hugh Bertram Malcomson and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta, Suit 687/2001/T, SIC 1575/2001, [2001] SGHC 309
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mehta commenced employment in Zerity as an Assistant Vice-President. | |
| Mehta tendered his resignation via email. | |
| Zerity accepted Mehta’s resignation with immediate effect and waived the 2-month notice period. | |
| Mehta received pro-rated salary for 1 May 2000 and two months’ salary in lieu of notice. | |
| Mehta started making persistent calls to the various directors of Zerity. | |
| Plaintiffs took out the writ in this action. | |
| Hearing of the SIC. | |
| 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 for application for judgment in default of defence. | |
| Mr Pillai obtained leave to amend the Statement of Claim. | |
| Amended Statement of Claim was served on Mehta. | |
| Plaintiffs applied again for judgment in default of defence. | |
| Judgment was given in writing. |
7. Legal Issues
- Tort of Harassment
- Outcome: The court recognized the potential for a tort of harassment in Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1988] 2 FLR 179
- [1993] 3 All ER 737
- [1995] 1 WLR 1372
- [1997] 2 All ER 426
- Trespass
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs had established bases for trespass.
- Category: Substantive
- Nuisance
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs had established bases for nuisance.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Injunctions
9. Cause of Actions
- Trespass
- Nuisance
- Harassment
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- 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 injunctions in tort actions and the existence of a tort of harassment. |
| Khorasandjian v Bush | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 All ER 737 | England | Dealt with an injunction against harassment and questioned the position that there is no tort of harassment. Overruled in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd. |
| Burris v Azadani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 1372 | England | Discusses the court's power to grant injunctive relief and reviews the law of harassment. |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1997] 2 All ER 426 | England | Overruled Khorasandjian v Bush and discussed the statutory recognition of a tort of harassment in England. |
| Foster v Warblington UDC | N/A | Yes | [1906] 1 KB 648 | England | Discussed in relation to the right of a licensee to sue in private nuisance. |
| Motherwell v Motherwell | Appellate Division of the Alberta Supreme Court | Yes | (1976) 73 DLR (3d) 62 | Canada | Discusses the right of a wife to obtain an injunction against harassment in the matrimonial home. |
| Wilkinson v Downton | N/A | Yes | [1897] 2 QB 57 | England | Established that false words or verbal threats calculated to cause physical injury are actionable. |
| Janvier v Sweeney & Anor | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1919] 2 KB 316 | England | Applied Wilkinson v Downton and held defendants liable for damages for causing nervous shock. |
| Arul Chandran v Gartshore | N/A | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 446 | Singapore | Discusses whether mental distress is actionable in Singapore law. |
| Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas | N/A | Yes | [1888] 13 App Cas 222 | N/A | Discussed in relation to the recoverability of damages for mental distress. |
| Allsop v Allsop | N/A | Yes | 5 H.&N. 534 | England | Case involving a slander. |
| Malone v Laskey | N/A | Yes | [1907] 2 KB 141 | England | Decision of the Court of Appeal. |
| Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 All ER 65 | England | Discusses compensation for distress, inconvenience or discomfort in actions based on negligence. |
| Robert Fine v. Eileen May McLardy | EWCA | Yes | [1998] EWCA 3003 | England | Commented on the absence of a tort of interference with privacy. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act | Singapore |
| Sections 13A | Singapore |
| Sections 13B | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Harassment
- Trespass
- Nuisance
- Injunction
- Employment
- Emotional Distress
- Course of Conduct
15.2 Keywords
- Harassment
- Injunction
- Singapore
- Tort
- Nuisance
- Trespass
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Harassment | 85 |
| Torts | 75 |
| Injunctions | 60 |
| Property Law | 40 |
| Personal Injury | 30 |
| Defamation | 20 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Commercial Disputes | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Tort
- Harassment
- Civil Litigation