Kim Taw Electric Sawmill Co (Pte) Ltd v Ann Ee Siong
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | D C D'Cotta J |
Judgment Date | 24 March 1980 |
Neutral Citation | [1980] SGCA 4 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 85 of 1979 |
Date | 24 March 1980 |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
Year | 1980 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Joe Chellam (Joe Chellam) |
Citation | [1980] SGCA 4 |
Defendant Counsel | Chiam See Tong (Chiam & Co) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Res ipsa loquitur,Negligence,Logs rolling off lorry injuring plaintiff,Employers' duty to provide safe system of work -Injury in course of employment,Lorry parked lop-sided,Employers’ duties,Duty to provide safe system of work,Tort,Injury caused by logs rolling off parked lorry,Employment Law |
This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court (see [1978-1979] SLR 574 ). At the conclusion of the appeal, Wee Chong Jin CJ, delivering oral judgment of the court, reversed the findings of fact of the trial court as to how the logs rolled off the lorry. The Court of Appeal accepted the defendant`s version as to why the logs rolled off the lorry, that it was the plaintiff who knocked off the last wedge in the lorry, causing the logs to roll off.
Their Lordships also found that the system of work adopted by the defendant/appellant company was not safe, since it involved the human agency to knock off the wedges. It was the view of their Lordships that since persons were required to knock off the wedges, an accident may happen if the persons involved in knocking off the wedges were careless or negligent. In the premise, their Lordships found both the respondent and the appellant equally to blame for the accident and consequently, damages for the respondent were reduced by half and the respondent was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ho Yean Theng Jill v Public Prosecutor
...for every such offence. 50 The error made by counsel for the appellant was the same one made by Choor Singh J in Harry Lee Wee v PP [1980] 2 MLJ 56. In that case, the appellant faced eight charges of obtaining restitution in consideration of the concealment of the offence of criminal breach......
-
Public Prosecutor v Garett Alphonsus Lin Jia Qing
...the Accused should be treated as if he had committed one offence albeit there were six charges. He cited the case of Harry Lee Wee v PP (1980) 2 MLJ 56 in support of his argument. The Defence Counsel also urged the Court to impose a consecutive sentence for only two of the charges and for t......
-
Ho Yean Theng Jill v Public Prosecutor
...for every such offence. 50 The error made by counsel for the appellant was the same one made by Choor Singh J in Harry Lee Wee v PP [1980] 2 MLJ 56. In that case, the appellant faced eight charges of obtaining restitution in consideration of the concealment of the offence of criminal breach......
-
Wong Tiew Yong and Another v Public Prosecutor
...instance, Wong had made significant contributions to the CIAS over the last 20 years. He relied on the decision of Harry Lee Wee v PP [1980] 2 MLJ 56 to argue that such significant contributions should have been taken into account in sentencing. Additionally, counsel for Wong claimed that t......
-
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN SINGAPORE: THE LEGAL CHALLENGE
...Co (Pte) Ltd[1980—81] SLR 112, [1980] 1 MLJ 6; Kian Huat Lorry Transport v Kamardin bin Adan[1978—79] SLR 607, [1980] 1 MLJ 280 (HC), [1980] 2 MLJ 56 (CA); Mohamed Yeanikutty v Far East Truck Inc Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd[1984—85] SLR 178, [1984] 2 MLJ 91 (CA); The Kohekohe[1984—85] SLR 277, ......
-
OF RETROSPECTIVE CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING: REVISITING PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN MENG KHIN & 24 ORS
...principle mandate the application of prospective overruling. 167 It had been said by Choor Singh J in Harry Lee Wee v Public Prosecutor[1980] 2 MLJ 56 (High Court, Singapore) that an accused person had no fundamental right to pick the court or the time for his trial. This remark, it is resp......
-
COMPOSITION
...(3 Ed III It North). 7 See ss 213-215 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed); see also the case of Harry Lee Wee v Public Prosecutor [1980] 2 MLJ 56. 8 [1825] 3 LJOS 190. 9 Elworthy v Bird [1825] 3 LJOS 190 at 193. 10 3 P Wms 277. 11 Roy v Duke of Beaufort (1741) 2 Atk 190; Collins v Blan......