← All Authorities
Singapore harassmentintentional inflictioninjunctions

Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram v Mehta Naresh Kumar

[2001] 3 SLR(R) 379; [2001] SGHC 309
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore High Court
Year2001
StatusPersuasive authority

Key Principle

The Singapore High Court recognised a common law tort of intentional harassment, defined as a sufficiently repetitive course of conduct (by words or action) which the defendant ought reasonably to know would, and which in fact does, cause worry, emotional distress or annoyance to another, capable of grounding an injunction and damages.

Area of Law

Tort — harassment — protection of intentional infliction of emotional distress

Related Cases

Kalen, Alexandru v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 31
Wong Mei Lee Millie v Ngor Shing Rong Jake [2026] SGCA 27
Kardachi, Jason Aleksander (private trustee of Rajesh Bothra) and another v Deepak Mishra and others [2025] SGHC 218

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram v Mehta Naresh Kumar and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertra...