Auto Palace Pte Ltd v Sean Liew Cheng En
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Seah Chi Ling |
Judgment Date | 18 April 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGDC 110 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | DC 2258 of 2011/K |
Published date | 09 May 2013 |
Year | 2013 |
Hearing Date | 30 January 2013,15 October 2012,11 September 2012,16 October 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Ang Cheng Ann Alfonso [A.Ang, Seah & Hoe] - Plaintiff |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Yeo Kim Hai Patrick,Ms Lim Hui Ying [Khattarwong LLP] - Defendant |
Citation | [2013] SGDC 110 |
The present action arose out of an accident which occurred during a test drive event involving a Spyker C8 Spyder SWB motor vehicle. The plaintiff was the organiser of the test drive event. The plaintiff brought the present action against the driver of the vehicle, seeking compensation for damage occasioned to the vehicle. The Plaintiff’s claim was brought both in contract and in tort.
Background Facts The Plaintiff, Auto Palace Pte Ltd, is a limited exempt private company incorporated under the laws of Singapore. The Plaintiff is part of the Hong Seh Motor Pte Ltd (“
The Defendant was, at the material time, a 22-year old undergraduate student with the National University of Singapore.
On or about 21 May 2009, the Plaintiff held a test drive event (the “
In organising the Event, the Plaintiff worked extensively with the marketing and sales department of Hong Seh, as well as an event organising company called Pit Crew. Pit Crew designed the recommended test drive route for the Event.
Mr. Martijn Schilte (“
The Event was organised a private event for specially invited guests to test drive the Vehicle on a private track at the SCC. Participation in the Event was by invitation only.
The Defendant had not been invited to the Event but was brought by his father, Jeffrey Liew Tiong Hwa, who was an invited guest (“
The Defendant did eventually sign the test drive form, albeit erroneously on the witness’ column of the form. The test drive form was handed to him by one Ms Chong Mun Ling Amanda (“
The Test Drive Event was to be conducted as follows:
The Defendant’s test drive was the 3rd test drive of the day, and was carried out in accordance with the steps outlined above. All prior test drives that day were completed without any incident. In particular, the Defendant’s father, Mr Jeffrey Liew, had carried out the test drive just before the Defendant. Mr Jeffrey Liew completed his test drive without any significant issues, save that he had spun out 3 times in the PADA area and stalled the car once during his test drive.
After Mr Jeffrey Liew completed his test drive, the Defendant commenced his test drive. The Defendant was briefed by the Mr Schilte prior to the commencement of the test drive in accordance with the test drive procedures outlined above. Mr Schilte then drove and completed the first lap (i.e. the demonstration lap), with the Defendant by his side as the front seat passenger. For the second lap, the Defendant took over as driver, with Mr Schilte by his side as front seat passenger. Other than the Vehicle spinning out once at the PADA area, the second lap was uneventful.
Upon the completion of the second lap, the Defendant continued with third lap as driver, again with Mr Schilte by his side. It was not disputed that the Defendant again spun out at the PADA area once during the third lap, but managed to recover and continue with the drive. However, on the way back to the start area, whilst negotiating a series of turns at an area of the track which the parties have termed the “fast chicane”, the Defendant lost control of the Vehicle. The Vehicle spun counter-clockwise, hit the kerb and before landing back on the tarmac (the “
The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant the repair costs of the Vehicle in the sum of $70,871.84. The Plaintiff relied on the indemnification provisions contained in the test drive form signed by the Defendant (the “
Alternatively, the Plaintiff claimed the sum of $70,871.84 in tort, being the loss and/or damages suffered by the Plaintiff resulting from the Accident caused solely by the negligence of the Defendant (the “
The Defendant resisted the Contract Claim on,
In relation to the Tort Claim, the Defendant raised,
The Defendant also asserted that the damages claimed by the Plaintiff had not been adequately proven.
My DecisionAt the conclusion of the trial, I rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments and entered judgement for the Plaintiff’s claim in full, with interests and costs. The Defendant has appealed against the whole of my decision. I now give the detailed reasons for my decision.
Detailed Grounds The Contract Claim The Plaintiff’s Contract Claim was based on the test drive form (hereinafter, referred to interchangeably as the “
“Please take note that Auto Palace Pte Ltd makes no representation and shall not be held responsible for the safety, conduct or activities of [the]...
To continue reading
Request your trial