Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 21 February 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGHC 45 |
Citation | [2013] SGHC 45 |
Defendant Counsel | Ian Lim and Freddie Lim (TSMP Law Corporation) |
Published date | 11 April 2013 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah and Jispal Singh (Unilegal LLC) |
Hearing Date | 06 November 2012,05 November 2012,07 November 2012,18 January 2013,08 November 2012 |
Docket Number | Suit No 566 of 2011/Z |
Date | 21 February 2013 |
Subject Matter | Contributory negligence,Change of position,Land,Agency by estoppel,Negligence,Incorporation of companies,Agency,Damages,Tort,Restitution,Trespass,Ratification,Companies,Lifting corporate veil |
In this suit, the plaintiff, Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd (“the Plaintiff”), claims against the defendant, Dr Rajiv Kaushik (“Dr Kaushik”), damages for trespass to land. These claims include a sum amounting to $352,704, being what the Plaintiff says is the market rent of the property for the period of 1 December 2008 to 6 October 2011 while Dr Kaushik was alleged to have wrongfully occupied and trespassed on the property, as well as a sum amounting to $12,000 for what it says is the cost of reinstatement for damage to the property. On the second day of the trial before me, counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr Ernest Balasubramaniam (“Mr Balasubramaniam”) said that it was no longer pursuing the second claim.
At issue before me is therefore, whether Dr Kaushik had committed the tort of trespass to land, and, if so, whether and to what extent he is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages.
The factual backgroundThe background to the present dispute is fairly uncomplicated in so far as the undisputed facts are concerned.
The charactersThe main subject matter of the present suit, 132 Tanjong Rhu, #15-10, Pebble Bay, Singapore 436919 (“the Property”) is owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff describes itself as an “investment company” and is one of several companies which together form what is loosely known as the Lee Tat group of companies. The Plaintiff, like most of the other companies in the Lee Tat group, has as its sole shareholder and director, Madam Ching Mun Fong (“Madam Ching”). Also like most of the other companies, it has no employees. The Plaintiff’s only assets are the Property and another unit also at the same Pebble Bay condominium development (“Pebble Bay”). The properties of the Plaintiff and the other property-holding companies in the Lee Tat group are managed by Lee Tat Property Management Pte Ltd (“Lee Tat Property”), a company run by Madam Ching and several employees.
Dr Kaushik is a New Zealand citizen and was at the material time the President and a director of a company known as I
Another important character to background of the present suit is a man known as Mohamed Razali bin Chichik (“Razali”) who was an employee of Lee Tat Property at the material time.
Dr Kaushik’s occupation of the Property The circumstances leading to Dr Kaushik’s occupation of the PropertyIn or around September 2008, Dr Kaushik and his wife came across an advertisement in the Straits Times newspaper seeking prospective tenants for the Property.1 As Dr Kaushik and his family were already staying in Pebble Bay under a lease in a different unit with another landlord, the advertisement piqued his interest.2 When he called the number listed on the advertisement, Razali answered and proceeded to invite Dr Kaushik and his wife to view the Property.3 Dr Kaushik’s wife attended the first viewing. At the second viewing, Dr Kaushik went with his wife. Dr Kaushik noticed that Razali had all the keys and access cards to the Property, and he seemed to be known to all the security guards at Pebble Bay.4
Some deliberation and negotiations with Razali over the rent and rectifications to the fittings in the Property (which Razali took care of) then took place.5 As to these rectifications which involved changing the curtains and doors of the Property, as well as repainting and cleaning, Dr Kaushik testified that Razali tended to them satisfactorily.6 Dr Kaushik then informed Razali that his employer I
I
In or around September 2010, when the first term of the purported Tenancy Agreement was ending, Dr Kaushik indicated to Razali that I
For the entire period from December 2008 to March 2011, I
On 8 March 2011, two employees of Lee Tat Property, one Lim Mui Wah (“Annie”) and another known only as Lynn, appeared at the Property and were surprised to find it occupied.18 According to them, the Property was supposed to be vacant. Lee Tat Property had found out that Razali was operating a fraud when a tenant of a property owned by another company of the group called up Lee Tat Property for clarification after Razali had asked for future rentals to be paid to him directly.19 The alarm having been raised, Annie and Lynn were sent to inspect the properties managed by Lee Tat Property.20
As it turns out, Razali had been acting on his own accord and without the authority of the Plaintiff or Lee Tat Property. At trial, it emerged that the signatures on the Tenancy Agreement, the letter renewing the lease, and the letter authorising Razali to receive payment were not Madam Ching’s. The stamps on the Tenancy Agreement were also not the stamps of the Plaintiff.
Negotiations between the parties and Dr Kaushik vacating the Property Letters were exchanged between the parties as regards their legal position.21 Meanwhile, I
In the present suit, the Plaintiff claims against Dr Kaushik for damages for trespass to land. The Plaintiff claims the sum of $352,704, being what it claims the Property would have fetched during Dr Kaushik’s occupation of the Property. It further claims damages of $12,000 for the cost of reinstatement of the Property. As I have noted at the outset, the Plaintiff decided not to pursue this latter claim on the second day of the trial.
The issues to be decided The issues to be decided in this present suit may be summarised into the following:
Dr Kaushik’s defence is that there was a valid lease binding on the Plaintiff. Consequently, there can be no trespass to land committed as a result of his occupation of the Property. In advancing this defence, Dr Kaushik makes four main arguments. First, Dr Kaushik relies on the signed Tenancy Agreement. Second, he avers that Razali had the ostensible authority to enter into a lease on behalf of the Plaintiff. Third, Dr Kaushik relies on the principle in the English Court of Appeal decision of
Relying on the signed Tenancy Agreement, Dr Kaushik alleges that there was a valid lease. At the trial, it was not disputed that the signatures on the Tenancy Agreement and the letter extending the lease were forged. While they were purported as having been signed by Madam Ching, it was in fact not so. Likewise, the stamp purporting to be the company stamp of the Plaintiff was a forgery. To this, the Plaintiff referred me to the decision of
To continue reading
Request your trial-
ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily
...Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 (refd) Bunnings Group Ltd v CHEP Australia Ltd [2011] NSWCA 342 (refd) Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv [2013] 2 SLR 543 (refd) Carlton Greer v Alstons Engineering Sales and Services Ltd [2003] UKPC 46 (refd) Chang Ah Lek v Lim Ah Koon [1998] 3 SLR (R) 551; ......
-
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301
...[2010] 1 SLR 241 at [35]), nor did it “unequivocally” signify assent [emphasis in original] (Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv [2013] 2 SLR 543 at [31]). It should be noted that the MCST did not dispute the attribution of the 2007 Statement in its pleadings. This argument only app......
-
ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services)
...MacFarlan JA agreed), ibid, especially at [173]–[185]); the Singapore High Court decision of Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv [2013] 2 SLR 543 (“Cavenagh Investment”), especially at [48]–[50]; as well as the observations in Harvey McGregor QC, McGregor on Damages (Sweet & Maxwell......
-
Zhou Weidong v Liew Kai Lung and others
...must show that but for the receipt of the benefit, it would not have changed its position (Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv [2013] 2 SLR 543 (“Cavenagh Investment”) at [67]; Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and......
-
UNAUTHORISED FIDUCIARY GAINS AND THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
...Elise Bant, The Change of Position Defence (Hart Publishing, 2009) at p 208. 169CfLipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd[1991] 2 AC 548 at 580. 170[2013] 2 SLR 543. 171Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv[2013] 2 SLR 543 at [58]–[65], per Chan J, noted in Rachel Leow, “Change of Position in Re......
-
THE USER PRINCIPLE
...speaking through a medium) who give wildly different accounts of the same event. 5 See, eg, Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv[2013] 2 SLR 543 regarding the availability of the defence of change of position. 6 See, eg, ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily[2013] 4 SLR 1317 a......
-
MORALLY BLAMELESS WRONGDOERS AND THE CHANGE OF POSITION DEFENCE
...fee” in Stadium Capital Holdings (No 2) Ltd v St Marylebone Property Co plc[2010] EWCA Civ 952 at [13], per Sir Peter Smith LJ. 2[2013] 2 SLR 543. 3 The issue is examined in Paul A Walker, “Change of Position and Restitution for Wrongs: ‘Ne'er the Twain Shall Meet’?” (2009) 33 Melbourne Uni......
-
TAKING STOCK OF THE CHANGE OF POSITION DEFENCE
...2 AC 548 at 579. 3[1994] 3 SLR(R) 836 (noted in Yeo Tiong Min, “Restitution, Tracing and Change of Position”[1994] Sing JLS 138). 4[2013] 2 SLR 543. 5Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv[2013] 2 SLR 543 at [59]. 6 Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 at 580. 7 Graham Virgo, “......