ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services)
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 04 October 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGCA 53 |
Citation | [2013] SGCA 53 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 149 of 2012 |
Hearing Date | 21 May 2013 |
Plaintiff Counsel | N Sreenivasan SC and Valerie Ang (Straits Law Practice LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Lee Mun Hooi and Lee Shihui (Lee Mun Hooi & Co) |
Subject Matter | Tort,Detinue,Damages,Assessment,Compensation,User principle |
Published date | 02 December 2013 |
This is an appeal by the Appellant, Aces System Development Pte Ltd, against the decision of the High Court Judge (“the Judge”) in
Both parties carry out business in the construction industry. The Respondent was a subcontractor of the Appellant for the project known as the “Proposed improvement works to metal roofs for a total of 39 blocks of flats at Bishan-Toa Payoh North and Toa Payoh Central Divisions” (“the project”). The Appellant was appointed by the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council in the first half of 2008, and the Respondent entered into the subcontract with the Appellant (“the subcontract”) on 10 July 2008.
Background to the disputeIn the subcontract, the Respondent was to provide mobile platforms as well as erect and dismantle these platforms at various locations at the site of the project where the Appellant was carrying out work. She was to provide six sets of single mast climbing platforms and accessories (collectively, “the platforms”) for a maximum period of 16 months, ending 31 January 2010.
Notably, the subcontract contained a provision for the Appellant to financially assist the Respondent to purchase the platforms, and this was executed in the form of a letter of credit in favour of the vendor of the platforms. The Respondent would repay the purchase price and the charges incurred by the Appellant in relation to the letter of credit by 12 equal monthly instalments, and such instalments would be deducted from the progress payments to be made by the Appellant to the Respondent pursuant to the subcontract.
Under the subcontract, the Respondent would be paid a total of $850,000 for work done at 39 blocks of flats: $21,795 each for the first 38 blocks, and $21,790 for the last block. The Respondent carried out the subcontract works and submitted progress claims to the Appellant for payment. By July 2009, there was an outstanding balance of over $188,000 due to the Respondent. On 3 July 2009, the Respondent informed the Appellant that she was unable to carry out further works on the site. The next day, the Appellant replied that if the Respondent did not proceed with the work, it would engage a third party and recover the cost of employing the third party from the Respondent. On 7 July 2009, the Respondent wrote to the Appellant noting that it had continued to use the platforms on site and stated that she would hold the Appellant responsible for any loss or damage to the same. She also stated that she would be removing the platforms from the site immediately. On the same day, the Appellant responded to the effect that the platforms were exclusive to the project and that the Respondent could not remove the platforms without the Appellant’s consent. On 11 July 2009, the Appellant terminated the subcontract. The Appellant continued to use the platforms up to December 2009 when the project was completed and kept them in storage thereafter.
The Respondent commenced proceedings against the Appellant in August 2009 and claimed the balance sum owing to her, loss of profits, the return of the platforms and damages for wrongful detention of the same for the period that the platforms were kept in storage. The trial judge delivered judgment on 4 October 2010 and held that:
The Appellant returned the platforms to the Respondent on 23 October 2010.
The issues with regard to assessment In the assessment of damages (which are the subject of the present appeal), the AR assessed the following heads of damage, which were in contention before the Judge and remain in contention on appeal:
The AR held as follows:
On appeal, the Judge varied the assessment of damages as follows:
We are of the view that the Judge was correct in arriving at the decisions she did with respect to the first two issues (
It is trite law that the nature of an appeal from a registrar of the High Court to the judge in chambers is by way of rehearing of the application and the judge treats the matter
We agree with the Judge’s
The compensation principle is a general principle which prescribes that when a tortious wrong is committed by the defendant, the plaintiff ought – as a matter of logic,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The site
...see Bunnings Group Ltd v CHEP Australia Ltd [2011] NSWCa 342 at [201], per Giles Ja. 553 ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily [2013] SGCa 53. Compare Bunnings Group Ltd v CHEP Australia Ltd [2011] NSWCa 342 at [179]–[181], per allsop p, at [201], per Giles Ja. See also Black Diamond......