Amara Hotel Properties Pte Ltd v Sie Choon Poh (trading as Image Galaxy)

• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 19 April 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGCA 19
• Citation: [2004] SGCA 19
• Published date: 24 April 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Adeline Chong (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Whether incumbent on landlord to plead particulars of own negligence.,Pleadings,Tenant suing landlord for breach of covenant under lease agreement,Civil Procedure,Landlord seeking to rely on exclusion clause for negligence contained in tenancy agreement
• Court: Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Navinder Singh (Navin and Co)

19 April 2004

Judith Prakash J (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This matter came before us on appeal from the decision of Lai Kew Chai J given on 7 March 2003 (reported at [2003] 3 SLR 703) whereby the learned judge allowed the respondent tenant’s claim for damages arising out of the appellant landlord’s breach of covenant to repair. We allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the learned judge for further consideration of the issue of whether on the facts, cl 8.1 of the lease applied so as to exempt the landlord from liability for the tenant’s losses. We now give our reasons.

Background

2 The appellant, Amara Hotel Properties Pte Ltd (“Amara”), was the owner of a shop unit in the shopping complex known as “The Amara” in Tanjong Pagar Road. The respondent, Sie Choon Poh (trading as Image Galaxy) (“Mr Sie”), took a lease of the unit for a period of three years from 9 September 1998 to 8 September 2001 under a lease agreement dated 28 July 1998. Mr Sie operated a printing business at the unit.

3 For the purposes of the action and this appeal, the material terms of the lease are as follows:

8.1 Negligence

The Lessees agree to occupy use and keep the demised premises at the risk of the Lessees and hereby release the Lessors and their contractors and invitees in the absence of any gross negligence on the part of the Lessors their servants or agents from all claims and demands of every kind in respect of or resulting from any accident damage or injury occurring in the Complex or the demised premises and the Lessees expressly agree that in the absence of any such negligence as aforesaid the Lessors shall have no responsibility or liability for any loss damage or injury suffered by the Lessees (whether to or in respect of the Lessees’ person property or business conducted by the Lessees) as a result of any breakage leakage accident or event in the Complex or the demised premises.

9.2 Quiet Enjoyment

To permit the Lessees … to have quiet enjoyment and exclusive possession of the demised premises during the said term without any interruption by the Lessors …

9.4 Maintenance of the Complex

The Lessors shall maintain and keep in repair the Common Area during the term of this Lease inclusive of the exterior walls (other than shop fronts) and all parking spaces roads pavements water drainage lighting and other common facilities and services Provided Always that the manner in which such areas and facilities shall be maintained and the expenditure thereon shall be at the absolute discretion of the Lessors.

[emphasis added]

4 On 19 April 2001, waste water from the food court located directly above the unit leaked into the unit through the ceiling. The unit and the printing machinery inside it were soiled and the carpeted area at the entrance was damaged. Subsequent investigation revealed that the waste pipeline system installed for the food court met in a T-junction above the unit. The pipe at the T-junction was found to be severely corroded and this had led to the leakage. Mr Sie then commenced this action claiming damages for the loss sustained by him as a result of the leakage.

5 In his statement of claim, Mr Sie first set out the covenants contained in cll 9.2, 9.3 (relating to management and operation of the shopping complex) and 9.4. He then set out the events of 19 April 2001 and the consequential damage. Mr Sie then averred that the water and/or waste material contained in the piping system had leaked into the premises as a result of the cast iron pipes “being faulty, wholly corroded and unmaintained”. In these premises, in breach of the specified covenants, Amara had failed to keep the waste water pipe in the common area of the premises in good and proper condition or in a state of proper repair, and in the process had deprived Mr Sie of the use of the premises and caused him to suffer damages.

6 In the defence filed by Amara, all breaches of covenant alleged by Mr Sie were denied. In para 7, Amara pleaded...