Cavenagh Investment v Kaushik: Trespass to Land & Unauthorised Tenancy Dispute

In Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv, the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim by Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd against Dr. Rajiv Kaushik for trespass to land. The dispute arose from Dr. Kaushik's occupation of a property owned by Cavenagh Investment under a purported tenancy agreement facilitated by an employee of Lee Tat Property Management Pte Ltd, Mohamed Razali bin Chichik, who acted fraudulently without authority. The court, presided over by Justice Chan Seng Onn, found that there was no valid lease binding on Cavenagh Investment and that Dr. Kaushik had committed trespass. However, the court applied the change of position defense for part of the claim, ultimately awarding Cavenagh Investment damages of $1,451.61 for a portion of the occupation period.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case involving Cavenagh Investment's claim against Kaushik for trespass to land due to an unauthorized tenancy agreement. The court found Kaushik liable for a portion of the claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Cavenagh Investment Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Kaushik RajivDefendantIndividualLiable in damages in partLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Balasubramaniam Ernest YogarajahUniLegal LLC
Jispal SinghUniLegal LLC
Ian LimTSMP Law Corporation
Freddie LimTSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Dr. Kaushik occupied a property owned by Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd.
  2. Mohamed Razali bin Chichik, an employee of Lee Tat Property Management Pte Ltd, facilitated the occupation.
  3. Razali acted without the authority of Cavenagh Investment.
  4. The signatures on the Tenancy Agreement and lease extension were forged.
  5. I2MS.Net paid rent to Razali, who was not authorized to receive payments.
  6. The Plaintiff claimed damages for trespass to land.
  7. Dr. Kaushik argued there was a valid lease or that the Plaintiff had ratified Razali's actions.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv, Suit No 566 of 2011/Z, [2013] SGHC 45

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Advertisement seeking tenants for the Property appeared in the Straits Times newspaper.
I2MS.Net received a letter of intent bearing a letter head which read “Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd” and which was signed by Razali.
Razali produced a signed letter bearing the letter head of the Plaintiff stating that Razali was authorised to receive the monthly rental.
Dr Kaushik asked his staff at I2MS.Net to do due diligence, and found that the Property was owned by the Plaintiff, and that its sole director and shareholder was Madam Ching.
Razali attended at I2MS.Net’s office with a copy of the Tenancy Agreement bearing a stamp which read “Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd”. It was purportedly signed by Madam Ching.
Dr Kaushik and his family moved into the Property after the purported lease commenced.
The refrigerator in the Property broke down.
Dr Kaushik indicated to Razali that I2MS.Net wanted to extend the lease.
Razali replied with a letter, again bearing the letter head of the Plaintiff, extending the lease by 2 years from 1 December 2010 to 30 November 2012.
Two employees of Lee Tat Property, Annie and Lynn, appeared at the Property and were surprised to find it occupied.
I2MS.Net continued to pay the monthly rent for the period from April 2011 to September 2011 (amounting to $54,000), but paid these monies to the Plaintiff instead.
Dr Kaushik and his family moved out of the Property.
Dr Kaushik handed the keys to the Plaintiff.
Order of Court dated 14th November 2011.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trespass to Land
    • Outcome: The court found that Dr. Kaushik had committed the tort of trespass to land.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Wrongful Occupation
      • Damages for Trespass
    • Related Cases:
      • [1978] 1 WLR 285
  2. Ostensible Authority
    • Outcome: The court found that Razali did not have the ostensible authority to enter into the lease on behalf of the Plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Authority of Agent
      • Representation by Principal
    • Related Cases:
      • [1964] 2 QB 480
  3. Ratification
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff did not ratify the unauthorized acts of Razali.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Acquiescence
      • Adoption of Unauthorized Acts
    • Related Cases:
      • [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 84
  4. Change of Position Defence
    • Outcome: The court applied the change of position defense for the period of December 2008 to March 2011, denying restitutionary damages for that period.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Bona Fide Change
      • Causation
      • Inequitable Restitution
    • Related Cases:
      • [1991] 2 AC 548
  5. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the defence of contributory negligence is not applicable to the tort of trespass to land.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Vicarious Liability
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff is not vicariously liable for the alleged tort committed by Razali.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lifting the Corporate Veil
    • Related Cases:
      • [1990] 1 Ch 433

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for Trespass to Land
  2. Market Rent for Wrongful Occupation
  3. Reinstatement Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trespass to Land

10. Practice Areas

  • Trespass to Land
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 194England and WalesCited to contend that Razali had the ostensible authority to communicate and represent to him the Plaintiff’s approval of the lease, thus binding the Plaintiff by doing so.
Ruben and Another v Great Fingall Consolidated and OthersHouse of LordsYes[1906] 1 AC 439England and WalesCited for the proposition that a forged document is a “pure nullity” which therefore cannot bind it.
Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-GeneralHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1990) 170 CLR 146AustraliaCited to explain that a company cannot give authority to fix a false seal and it is difficult to envisage a case in which there would be ostensible authority to write a false signature.
Freeman & Lockyer (a firm) v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd and AnotherQueen's BenchYes[1964] 2 QB 480England and WalesCited to define apparent or ostensible authority.
Next of kin of Ramu Vanniyar Ravichandran v Fongsoon Enterprises (Pte) LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 105SingaporeCited to support the argument that Razali had ostensible authority to enter into a lease on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Pacific Carriers Limited v BNP ParibasHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2004) 218 CLR 451AustraliaCited to support the argument that Razali had ostensible authority to enter into a lease on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SAHouse of LordsYes[1986] AC 717England and WalesCited as an established principle that the law of agency does not recognise what may be described as a “self-authorising” agent.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 540SingaporeCited to examine and consider First Energy, it suggested a possible reading of the case which would not be inconsistent with what it considered the orthodoxy in Armagas Ltd.
Eng Gee Seng v Quek Choon Teck and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 241SingaporeCited for the proposition that in an appropriate case, silence or inactivity can amount to ratification.
Yona International Ltd and Heftsiba Overseas Works Pte Ltd v La Réunion Française Société Anonyme d'Assurances et de RéassurancesEnglish High CourtYes[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 84England and WalesCited for the proposition that in an appropriate case, silence or inactivity can amount to ratification.
Spiro v Lintern and OthersEnglish Court of AppealYes[1973] WLR 1002England and WalesCited to demonstrate how the concepts of ratification and estoppel can very often be confused.
Adams and Others v Cape Industries Plc and AnotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[1990] 1 Ch 433England and WalesCited to confirm that it is open for businessmen to structure their operations to insulate one part of a business from another.
The “Andres Bonifacio”Singapore Court of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 71SingaporeCited to approve Slade LJ’s statement in Adams and Others v Cape Industries Plc and Another.
New Line Productions, Inc and another v Aglow Video Pte Ltd and others and other suitsSingapore High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 660SingaporeCited by Dr Kaushik in his submissions.
Brown v Attorney-GeneralStraits Settlements Supreme CourtYes[1889] KY 4SingaporeCited for the proposition that the defence of contributory negligence applies to the tort at hand.
Pritchard v Cooperative Group LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[2012] QB 320England and WalesCited to determine whether the defence in s 1(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (c 28) (UK) applies to the torts of assault and battery.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council v W & J Wass LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1988] 3 All ER 394England and WalesCited for the principle that the right to sue for damages based on the market rental value of a property wrongfully occupied is a principle well established in the law.
Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet and OthersEnglish Court of AppealYes[1978] 1 WLR 285England and WalesCited for the proposition that when the plaintiff has established that the defendant has remained on as a trespasser in residential property, he is entitled to have as damages for the trespass the value of the property as it would fairly be calculated.
Penarth Dock Engineering Co Ltd v PoundsNot AvailableYes[1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 359England and WalesCited when Lord Denning MR used what may be described as “restitutionary language” in a case involving trespass to the claimant’s dock.
Ministry of Defence v AshmanCourt of AppealYes(1993) 66 P & CR 195England and WalesCited that a claim for mesne profit for trespass to land is a claim for restitution.
Inverugie Investments Ltd v HackettJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilYes[1995] 1 WLR 713BahamasCited that the claim for mesne profits need not be characterised as exclusively compensatory, or exclusively restitutionary; it combines elements of both.
Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) v ACES System Development Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 577SingaporeCited to explore the juridical basis of the user principle in the context of damages for the wrongful detention of goods.
Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and anotherHouse of LordsYes[2008] 1 AC 561England and WalesCited for the concept of subjective devaluation.
Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale LtdHouse of LordsYes[1991] 2 AC 548England and WalesCited for the defence known as “change of position” being applicable.
Seagate Technology Pte Ltd and another v Goh Han KimNot AvailableYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 836SingaporeCited for the defence known as “change of position” being applicable.
MCST Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte LtdNot AvailableYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 418SingaporeCited for the defence known as “change of position” being applicable.
Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5)House of LordsYes[2002] 2 AC 883England and WalesCited that the defence is applicable to restitution for the tort of conversion, although the pronouncement is far from definitive.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another suitSingapore High CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR(R) 788SingaporeCited that the causative test is a “but for” test: the defendant needs to satisfy the court that but for the receipt of the benefit, it would not have changed its position.
Agip (Africa) Ltd v JacksonNot AvailableYes[1990] Ch 265England and WalesCited that “the true distinction is between honesty and dishonesty”.
Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v TanJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilYes[1995] 2 AC 378Not AvailableCited in which the meaning of dishonesty was explored.
Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and OthersHouse of LordsYes[2002] 2 AC 164England and WalesCited when Lord Hutton held that test for dishonesty was a “combined test” which has both an objective and a subjective element.
Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Milestone Trading Ltd (No 1)Not AvailableYes[2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 705England and WalesCited that a lack of good faith for the purposes of the change of position defence must encompass more than dishonesty in the Twinsectra sense.
Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Milestone Trading LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[2004] 2 WLR 1415England and WalesCited that a lack of good faith for the purposes of the change of position defence must encompass more than dishonesty in the Twinsectra sense.
Barlow Clowes International Ltd (in liquidation) v Eurotrust International LtdJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilYes[2006] 1 All ER 333Not AvailableCited that the test was an objective one, and one which does not require the defendant to have “reflections about what [the] normally acceptable standards were”.
George Raymond Zage III and another v Ho Chi Kwong and anotherSingapore Court of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 589SingaporeCited that the test for dishonesty is simply that “for a defendant to be liable for knowing assistance, he must have such knowledge of the irregular shortcomings of the transaction that ordinary honest people would consider it to be a breach of standards of honest conduct if he failed to adequately query them”.
Dextra Bank & Trust Co Ltd v Bank of JamaicaNot AvailableYes[2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 193Not AvailableCited that a defendant’s negligence is generally regarded as irrelevant to the availability of the change of position defence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trespass to Land
  • Ostensible Authority
  • Ratification
  • Change of Position
  • Restitutionary Damages
  • Tenancy Agreement
  • Fraud
  • Corporate Veil
  • Market Rent
  • Good Faith

15.2 Keywords

  • trespass
  • land
  • tenancy
  • lease
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Cavenagh Investment
  • Kaushik Rajiv
  • ostensible authority
  • ratification
  • change of position
  • restitution

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trespass to Land90
Change of position85
Torts80
Property Law75
Restitutionary Damages70
Agency Law65
Ostensible Authority60
Vicarious liability55
Estoppel50
Good Faith50
Ratification45
Contract Law40
Dishonesty40
Contributory negligence35
Breach of Contract30
Subjective Devaluation25

16. Subjects

  • Property Law
  • Contract Law
  • Agency
  • Restitution