Yu v Singh: Harassment, Protection from Harassment Act, Web Post, Employee Dispute
Benber Dayao Yu appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the District Judge's decision to dismiss his application for a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act against Jacter Singh. The application stemmed from a web post by Singh about Yu, his former employee, alleging misconduct. See Kee Oon J allowed the appeal on 26 April 2017, granting a protection order against Singh regarding the web post and ordering him to pay costs. The court found the web post to be harassing and not constituting reasonable conduct.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act. The court allowed the appeal, finding the respondent's web post harassing.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benber Dayao Yu | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Earnest Lau, Joseph Tham |
| Jacter Singh | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ranjit Singh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Earnest Lau | Chancery Law Corporation |
| Joseph Tham | Chancery Law Corporation |
| Ranjit Singh | Francis Khoo & Lim |
4. Facts
- The appellant was a former employee of the respondent's sports coaching company.
- The respondent posted a web post on his company's website containing allegations about the appellant.
- The web post alleged that the appellant was an incompetent coach and a molester.
- A prior molest complaint against the appellant in the Philippines was dismissed for lack of probable cause.
- The respondent was aware that the complaint had been dismissed but did not clearly state this in the web post.
- The web post contained a link to a New Paper article that provided a slightly more balanced account but was still considered hearsay.
- The District Judge initially dismissed the application for a protection order, finding the respondent's conduct reasonable.
5. Formal Citations
- Benber Dayao Yu v Jacter Singh, , [2017] SGHC 92
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Benber Dayao Yu began working for Jacter Singh's sports coaching company, JS Athletics. | |
| Benber Dayao Yu left the employment of Jacter Singh. | |
| Jacter Singh posted the Web post on JS Athletics' website. | |
| Benber Dayao Yu filed an application under DC/PHA 70060 of 2015 for a protection order. | |
| Hearing of DC/PHA 70060 of 2015 took place before the District Judge. | |
| Hearing of DC/PHA 70060 of 2015 took place before the District Judge. | |
| District Judge's grounds of decision were set out in his Notes of Evidence. | |
| Hearing on appeal. | |
| Applications for leave to appeal and security for costs heard by the District Judge. | |
| Applications for leave to appeal and security for costs heard by the District Judge. | |
| Appeal was heard. | |
| Security for costs application was adjourned to this date and eventually withdrawn. | |
| Appeal was heard. | |
| Hearing on appeal. | |
| See Kee Oon J allowed the appeal and granted a protection order. |
7. Legal Issues
- Harassment
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent's web post contained abusive and insulting words and did not constitute reasonable conduct, thus contravening the Protection from Harassment Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Abusive or insulting words
- Reasonable conduct defence
- Retrospective Application of POHA
- Outcome: The court held that the POHA applied because the web post remained accessible after the Act came into force, constituting ongoing publication.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Protection Order
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Harassment
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Sports Coaching
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chee Siok Chin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the approach to interpreting undefined terms like 'harassment', 'insult', and 'abusive' in the context of harassment legislation. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the range of relevant factors to be considered when deciding whether it was just and equitable to grant a section 15 Protection from Harassment Act order. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (Act 17 of 2014) | Singapore |
| Section 12 of the Protection from Harassment Act | Singapore |
| Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act | Singapore |
| Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Protection Order
- Web Post
- Harassment
- Reasonable Conduct
- Molest Allegations
- JS Athletics
- Protection from Harassment Act
15.2 Keywords
- harassment
- protection order
- web post
- employee dispute
- singapore
- POHA
16. Subjects
- Harassment Law
- Civil Litigation
- Internet Law
17. Areas of Law
- Harassment
- Tort
- Protection from Harassment Act