Lai Kwok Kin v Teo Zien Jackson: Harassment Protection Order Appeal

Lai Kwok Kin, managing director of WeR1 Consultants Pte Ltd, appealed against the District Judge's decision to dismiss his application for a protection order against Teo Zien Jackson, a former employee, under the Protection from Harassment Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the requirements under sections 12(2)(b) and (c) of the Act were not met, as the respondent's contravention was not likely to continue and granting a protection order would not be just and equitable.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed in harassment case. Court found no likelihood of continued harassment to grant protection order under Protection from Harassment Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lai Kwok KinAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Teo Zien JacksonRespondentIndividualAppeal dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Manoj NandwaniGabriel Law Corporation
Ng Yi Hui PearlGabriel Law Corporation
Cephas Yee XiangYi Xiang
Zhao HengAquinas Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant is the managing director and founder of WeR1 Consultants Pte Ltd.
  2. The respondent is a former employee of WeR1.
  3. The respondent sent an e-mail to several of WeR1’s staff members, including the appellant, containing threats.
  4. The respondent posted adverse reviews of WeR1 on its Facebook page and on Google Reviews.
  5. The respondent created a blog entitled “WeR1 Consultants” and posted a text post entitled “A Cautionary Tale” on that blog.
  6. The respondent removed the adverse reviews and wished to resolve the dispute as soon as possible.
  7. The appellant commenced DC/PHA 69/2018, seeking a PO under s 12 of the POHA.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lai Kwok Kin v Teo Zien Jackson, Community Justice and Tribunals Appeal No 1 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 95
  2. Lai Kwok Kin v Teo Zien Jackson, , [2019] SGDC 276

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent started work with WeR1.
Meeting between respondent, appellant, WeR1’s Human Resource manager, and Ms Kaur.
Respondent notified Ms Kaur of his intention to resign.
Respondent sent an e-mail to several of WeR1’s staff members, including the appellant.
Respondent sent a further e-mail to the appellant using another e-mail account.
Respondent lodged a claim with the Ministry of Manpower against WeR1 for salary in-lieu of notice.
WeR1’s solicitors sent a letter of demand to the respondent.
Respondent received the letter of demand.
Respondent sent an SMS message to the appellant.
Respondent posted adverse reviews of WeR1 on its Facebook page and on Google Reviews.
Respondent created a blog entitled “WeR1 Consultants” and posted a text post entitled “A Cautionary Tale” on that blog.
Respondent deleted his Google review on his own accord.
Respondent deactivated his Google Plus account.
Respondent sent an e-mail to the appellant informing him that he had removed the adverse reviews and wished to resolve the dispute.
Appellant reported the respondent’s blog to the blog administrators for harassment and/or bullying.
Appellant commenced DC/PHA 69/2018, seeking a PO under s 12 of the POHA.
Appellant applied for and obtained an expedited protection order against the respondent.
PTC held. Respondent was informed that his blog post remained live and his Facebook review had not been taken down.
Respondent took down his blog post.
Respondent wrote to Google to request for the removal of the cached link to the respondent’s blog from the Google search engine.
Respondent wrote to blogger.com to request for the removal of the cached link to the respondent’s blog from the Google search engine.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Likelihood of Continued Harassment
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent's contravention was not likely to continue.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Just and Equitable Grant of Protection Order
    • Outcome: The court found that granting a protection order would not be just and equitable in the present case.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Protection Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Harassment

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Financial Communications
  • Public Relations

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lai Kwok Kin v Teo Zien JacksonDistrict CourtYes[2019] SGDC 276SingaporeThe current appeal is against the decision of the District Judge in this case.
UMI v UMK and UMJ and anotherFamily CourtYes[2018] SGFC 53SingaporeCited for the principle that a PO may be issued as long as there is a chance or risk of family violence being committed against a family member, even if no actual violence has taken place before or at the time of the application.
UTH v UTI (on behalf of child)Family CourtYes[2019] SGFC 27SingaporeCited for the principle that it would be untenable for the court to only issue protection orders only when actual family violence has been committed.
TCK v TCLDistrict CourtYes[2014] SGDC 460SingaporeCited for the principle that an applicant generally will not be required to positively prove that an order is ‘necessary’ once family violence or the threat of it has been proven on the balance of probabilities.
VCJ v VCKFamily CourtYes[2019] SGFC 121SingaporeCited for the principle that once the first limb of s 65(1) WC has been proved, the second limb is likely to operate unless the protection is thought to be unnecessary.
Teng Cheng Sin v Law Fay YuenHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 365SingaporeThe appellant referred to this case to support the argument that evidence of a disputed incident which had taken place after the date of the wife’s application should not have been allowed. The court distinguished this case.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the well-entrenched rule that Parliament does not legislate in vain.
Benber Dayao Yu v Jacter SinghHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 316SingaporeCited for the key considerations which are pertinent to the issue of whether it just and equitable to grant an order under s 12 of the POHA.
Sin Lian Heng Construction Pte Ltd v Singapore Telecommunications LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 423SingaporeCited for the principle that at common law, “without prejudice” privilege attaches to admissions which are made for the purpose of settling a dispute.
Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd v Dextra Asia Co Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 807SingaporeCited for the principle that Section 23 applies to, inter alia, all communications which are expressly made on a “without prejudice” basis.
Quek Kheng Leong Nicky and another v Teo Beng Ngoh and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 181SingaporeCited for the principle that while attaching the words “without prejudice” to a communication does not automatically render it privileged, the presence of such words would place the burden of persuasion on the party who contends that they ought to be ignored.
Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited for the principle that since the existence of a dispute and the parties’ attempt to compromise it lie at the heart of the “without prejudice” privilege, the privilege cannot attach to communications wherein a party has admitted liability such that a dispute no longer exists.
Krishna Kumaran s/o K Ramakrishnan v Kuppusamy s/o RamakrishnanCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 232SingaporeCited for the principle that it is trite that waiver of the “without prejudice” privilege requires the consent of both parties.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 12 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 12(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 12(2)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 12(2)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 12(2)(c) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
ss 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
ss 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
ss 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
ss 6 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
ss 7 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 65 of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 65(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 64 of the Women’s CharterSingapore
s 23(1) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 17 of the Evidence ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Protection order
  • Harassment
  • WeR1 Consultants
  • Protection from Harassment Act
  • Online reviews
  • Facebook
  • Blog
  • Ministry of Manpower

15.2 Keywords

  • Harassment
  • Protection Order
  • POHA
  • Protection from Harassment Act
  • Online Harassment
  • Workplace Harassment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Protection from Harassment95
Orders for protection80
Torts70
Privacy Law60
Breach of Court Order20

16. Subjects

  • Harassment
  • Protection Order
  • Tort