Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 21 February 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGHC 45 |
Subject Matter | Damages,Agency,Lifting corporate veil,Incorporation of companies,Trespass,Land,Negligence,Companies,Agency by estoppel,Restitution,Change of position,Contributory negligence,Ratification,Tort |
Docket Number | Suit No 566 of 2011/Z |
Citation | [2013] SGHC 45 |
Published date | 11 April 2013 |
Year | 2013 |
Defendant Counsel | Ian Lim and Freddie Lim (TSMP Law Corporation) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah and Jispal Singh (Unilegal LLC) |
Hearing Date | 05 November 2012,08 November 2012,18 January 2013,07 November 2012,06 November 2012 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
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 Property In or around September 2008, Dr Kaushik and his wife came across an advertisement in the Straits Times newspaper seeking prospective tenants for the Property.
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.
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.
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial