Dear all,

 

In AXA Insurance Singapore v Chandran s/o Natesan [2013] SGHC 158 (link), the Singapore High Court held that the plaintiff's claim for a permanent injunction against the defendant in the torts of nuisance and harassment failed.

 

The claim in nuisance failed because the defendant's actions in harassing the plaintiff's staff and lawyers did not give rise to a nuisance in respect of the plaintiff's enjoyment of its land.

 

The claim in harassment failed because it had not been adequately pleaded, and because it had not been shown that the plaintiff had standing to sue on behalf of its employees.

 

More significantly, the Court also appears to have decided that the claim in harassment failed on a more fundamental basis, namely, that the tort of harassment does not exist and can only be introduced by Parliament. This aspect of the decision is directly contrary to an earlier High Court case (Malcolmson Nicholas Hugh Bertram v Mehta Noresh Kumar [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379) and raises interesting questions about the proper role of a court in making or developing new law, and also glosses over a recent Court of Appeal case which seems to have assumed in dicta that the tort of harassment does exist as a matter of Singapore law (Tee Yok Kiat v Pang Min Seng [2013] SGCA 9).

 

Kind regards,

Colin