Tpy v Dzi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1997
• Date: 24 April 1997
• Docket Number: Suit No 978 of 1996 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

TPY

Plaintiff

and

DZI

Defendant

[1997] SGHC 106

MPH Rubin J

Suit No 978 of 1996 (Registrar's Appeal No 244 of 1996)

High Court

Tort–Enticement–Man's wife leaving man for interloper–Man bringing action claiming damages for loss of consortium under tort of enticement–Whether tort of enticement still applicable in Singapore

The plaintiff's wife left him for the defendant. He brought an action against the defendant claiming damages for loss of consortium under the tort of enticement. The defendant applied to strike out the statement of claim on grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous or vexatious or in the alternative an abuse of the process of court. The assistant registrar dismissed the application with costs. The defendant appealed. The issue on appeal was whether in Singapore a husband, whose wife had left him for another man, could maintain an action against the interloper for damages.

Held, allowing the appeal:

The statement of claim was struck out on the grounds that the action was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court. To give currency to a cause of action which had no presence in Singapore and one which had been abolished in the place of its origin would be to lend a hand to encouraging fruitless litigation for vindictive purposes. Even though the tort of enticement might have been received in Singapore under the Charter of Justice 1826 (c 85), it could not continue to serve any useful purpose particularly when society no longer subscribed to the view that women were mere chattels whose existence was only to be in the service of their husbands. Sections 45, 46, 48 and 49 of the Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed) clearly underscored the aspect that a wife was a person in her own right and not someone who was subordinate to, or a chattel of, her husband: at [14] and [15].

Best v Samuel Fox & Co Ld [1952] AC 716 (refd)

Place v Searle [1932] 2 KB 497 (refd)

Tan Kay Poh v Tan Surida [1988] 2 SLR (R) 515; [1988] SLR 983 (refd)

Women's Charter (Cap 47, 1970 Rev Ed) s 104

Women's Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 45, 46, 48, 49, 85, 88 (3)

Charter of Justice 1826 (c 85) (UK)

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 (c 33) (UK) ss 4, 5 (a)

Aloysius Leng (Abraham Low & Partners) for the defendant/appellant

B Mohan Singh and Tan Cheng Kiong (Chung Tan & Partners) for the plaintiff/respondent.

MPH Rubin J

1 The issue in this appeal was whether in Singapore a husband, whose wife had left him for another man, could maintain an action against the interloper for damages.

Background

2 The plaintiff's statement of claim recites that when his wife went to buy a handphone at a teleshop, the defendant, a salesman who is several years younger than the plaintiff's wife, had somehow managed to win her affection and persuaded her to leave the plaintiff. The pleadings further allege that since about February 1996 the defendant and the plaintiff's wife had been seeing each other and were in adulterous union. The plaintiff therefore had brought this action claiming damages against the defendant for loss of consortium. The cause of action, as the plaintiff's counsel had put it, was founded on the tort of enticement.

3 The defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim on grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action...