Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta

Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta

O 19 r 7(1) is discretionary and the court must be satisfied that the pleadings disclose causes of action and that the plaintiff 'appears entitled' to the relief sought; on the pleaded facts plaintiffs established trespass and nuisance and the court recognises that intentional repetitive communications and intrusions amounting to harassment can found relief by injunction; accordingly judgment granted for plaintiffs and wide prohibitory injunctions made, costs awarded.

Citation
[2001] SGHC 308
Parties
Plaintiff: Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram; Plaintiff: Zerity; Defendant: Naresh Kumar Mehta
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
12 October 2001
Case Number
Suit 687/2001 , SIC 1575/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (tort; Injunction; Summary Judgment Application) / Application for Judgment in Default of Defence Under O 19 R 7(1) Rules of Court; Judgment Reserved and Now Delivered
Outcome
Application allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiffs on the amended statement of claim; interim injunction discharged; final injunctions granted; costs to plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Judgment in Default of Defence, Trespass, Nuisance, Harassment, Injunctions, Damages, Stalking, Privacy, Misuse of Communications
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Statutory Offences Summary Judgment Judgment in Default of Defence Trespass Nuisance Harassment +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram

Plaintiff

Zerity

Plaintiff

Naresh Kumar Mehta

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (tort; Injunction; Summary Judgment Application) / Application for Judgment in Default of Defence Under O 19 R 7(1) Rules of Court; Judgment Reserved and Now Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether O 19 r 7(1) is mandatory or discretionary and whether court must satisfy itself that plaintiff 'appears entitled' to judgment
  2. 2 Whether pleadings disclose causes of action (trespass, nuisance, harassment) sufficient for judgment in default of defence
  3. 3 Whether tort of harassment should be recognised at common law in Singapore

Ratio Decidendi

O 19 r 7(1) is discretionary and the court must be satisfied that the pleadings disclose causes of action and that the plaintiff 'appears entitled' to the relief sought; on the pleaded facts plaintiffs established trespass and nuisance and the court recognises that intentional repetitive communications and intrusions amounting to harassment can found relief by injunction; accordingly judgment granted for plaintiffs and wide prohibitory injunctions made, costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; judgment entered for the plaintiffs on the amended statement of claim; interim injunction discharged; final injunctions granted; costs to plaintiffs

Orders

  • Injunction restraining the defendant from entering or being within the residence
  • Injunction restraining the defendant from contacting or attempting to contact the first plaintiff by any means (in person, telephone, writing, electronic messages, facsimile or otherwise) and from sending articles likely to come to the first plaintiff's attention