JGH v JGI

The claimant, JGH, and her husband rented the respondent JGI's HDB flat under a two-year tenancy from 3 June 2023, sharing it peacefully with the respondent's son. On 14 January 2025 the son left for an internship abroad and the respondent, who usually lives in India, moved in, later saying he would stay until the tenancy ended. The husband sued in the Small Claims Tribunals for breach of an alleged right to exclusive possession, and the respondent counterclaimed for unpaid rent. The respondent stayed until 26 February 2025. The tribunal later found the tenants had no exclusive right and the respondent could stay for a few days, discounting his overstay from the rent owed.

On 27 March 2025 the respondent returned unannounced and forced his way in against the couple's resistance, which the husband filmed. The claimant alleged that he pushed her aside and said he had to kill her, and also that during his earlier stay he stared at her as she walked in a bathrobe, shouted, banged doors and threatened to lock the couple out. She claimed a Protection Order and $20,000 in damages under ss 3, 4 and 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act. The respondent counterclaimed for a Protection Order, alleging the couple blocked him, shouted and swore at him and locked his bedroom; he dropped his damages claim.

1. Whether the respondent contravened ss 3, 4 or 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act by the alleged staring, shouting and threats.
2. Whether his conduct on 27 March 2025 amounted to harassment.
3. Whether any contravention was likely to continue and whether a Protection Order would be just and equitable.
4. Whether the respondent's counterclaim should succeed.

On the staring allegation, the judge preferred the video and audio recordings to the husband's bare assertions. The husband's remark that his wife did not feel comfortable, made in a heated argument about whether the respondent could be in the flat, showed only general discomfort with his presence, which was lawful and not harassment. Nothing in the recordings showed staring, and it was odd that a couple who recorded him unawares had no recording of it. The shouting and lockout allegations were unparticularised, not pursued at trial, and rested on a mistaken belief in exclusive possession.

On 27 March 2025, the respondent had a right to enter. The words were prima facie threatening, and he admitted pushing past the claimant and, after watching the video, saying he would kill her, though he said he meant no harm. The judge found it a one-off, spur-of-the-moment reaction amid a commotion in which the couple, who had anticipated his arrival and were filming, shouted at and swore at him. It was a clash over perceived rights, done without intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress and not likely to cause it to a reasonable person in her position. Relying on Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs, harassment requires determined or persistent conduct calculated to cause distress, which an impulsive isolated act was not.

In any event, the tenancy had ended and the respondent mostly lived in India, so there was no evidence of likely continuation, and an order would not be just and equitable. With no contravention, damages failed. The counterclaim failed for the same reasons.

District Judge Lee Li Choon, sitting as Protection from Harassment Court Judge, dismissed both the claim, including the claim for damages, and the counterclaim in their entirety, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.