AXA Insurance v Chandran: Nuisance & Harassment Claims for Abusive Emails & Calls
AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd sued Chandran s/o Natesan in the High Court of Singapore, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from harassing its employees and advisors. AXA claimed Chandran's persistent and abusive communications constituted the tort of nuisance and harassment. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the application, holding that the tort of nuisance did not apply to the peace of mind of employees and that a cause of action for harassment was not sufficiently established in Singapore law.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's application to enter judgment against the defendant is dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
AXA Insurance sought an injunction against Chandran for alleged harassment via abusive emails and calls. The court dismissed the claim, finding no tort of nuisance or harassment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | K Muralidharan Pillai |
| Chandran s/o Natesan | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| K Muralidharan Pillai | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- The defendant held a motor vehicle insurance policy with the plaintiff.
- The defendant was involved in a road accident and made a claim on his policy.
- The defendant sent numerous emails and made phone calls to the plaintiff's employees.
- The plaintiff alleged the defendant used vulgar and threatening language in his communications.
- The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from harassing its employees and advisors.
- The defendant disputed the plaintiff's allegations of wrongful conduct.
5. Formal Citations
- AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd v Chandran s/o Natesan, Suit No 576 of 2013 (Summons No 3820 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 158
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Motor vehicle insurance policy covered the Vehicle | |
| Road accident occurred | |
| Claim made on policy | |
| Defendant sent emails and made phone calls to plaintiff's employees | |
| Solicitors for the plaintiff wrote to the defendant telling him to stop the abusive language | |
| Defendant wrote another email using abusive language | |
| Another warning from Willy Tay attracted an abusive email from the defendant | |
| Plaintiff gave the defendant seven days’ notice under the Policy to terminate the Policy | |
| Plaintiff filed writ | |
| Ex parte injunction obtained | |
| Counsel for plaintiff sent letter to defendant | |
| Defendant replied to counsel for plaintiff's letter | |
| Statement of claim filed | |
| Counsel returned to enter final judgment against the defendant | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Tort of Nuisance
- Outcome: The court held that the tort of nuisance does not extend to the peace of mind of employees.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1997] AC 655
- Tort of Harassment
- Outcome: The court questioned the existence of a common law tort of harassment in Singapore and stated that such a law should be legislated by Parliament.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379
- [2013] SGCA 9
8. Remedies Sought
- Permanent Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Tort of Nuisance
- Tort of Harassment
10. Practice Areas
- Insurance Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram & Anor v Mehta Noresh Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the tort of harassment, but the court ultimately questions its basis in Singapore law. |
| Tee Yok Kiat v Pang Min Seng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] SGCA 9 | Singapore | Cited for its reference to Malcomson regarding the elements of the tort of harassment. |
| Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1997] AC 655 | England and Wales | Cited to establish that the tort of private nuisance does not extend to the peace of mind of non-occupiers. |
| Wilkinson v Downton | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1897] 2 QB 57 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to torts against the person that do not require direct physical contact but require proof of damage. |
| Janvier v Sweeney | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1991] 2 KB 316 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to torts against the person that do not require direct physical contact but require proof of damage. |
| Khorashandjian v Bush | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1993] QB 727 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to torts against the person that do not require direct physical contact but require proof of damage. |
| Arul Chandran v Gartshore | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 436 | Singapore | Cited in relation to damages for mental distress arising from a breach of contract. |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | House of Lords | Yes | [1932] AC 562 | Scotland | Cited in relation to expanding the current boundaries of torts against the person. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| The Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Cap 184, Rev Ed 1997 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Harassment
- Nuisance
- Injunction
- Abusive Language
- Insurance Policy
- Emotional Distress
15.2 Keywords
- harassment
- nuisance
- injunction
- insurance
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Torts
- Civil Litigation
- Insurance Law
17. Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Nuisance
- Harassment
- Civil Procedure