AYW v AYX

JudgeGeorge Wei J
Judgment Date07 December 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGHC 312
Subject Matteraggravated damages,striking out,duty of care,Tort,causation,Civil procedure,negligence
Citation[2015] SGHC 312
Hearing Date20 August 2015
Published date11 December 2015
Year2015
Plaintiff CounselRenganathan Shankar and Manoj Prakash Nandwani (Gabriel Law Corporation)
Docket NumberSuit No 102 of 2015 (Registrar’s Appeals No 219 and 230 of 2015)
Defendant CounselThio Shen Yi, SC and Sharleen Eio Huiting (TSMP Law Corporation)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
George Wei J:

Schools are vital institutions in which young people spend significant portions of their formative years learning, making friends, and growing into young adults. It is the place where children take their first tentative steps out of the home environment. From nursery school all the way to university, interaction with “strangers”, peers and teachers is part and parcel of school-life and the learning process.

Whilst there was no direct evidence on this point, the fact that the school environment is academically and socially competitive is well-known. The pressure on children and teachers vary across the years. Quite apart from the pressure to “do well” academically as well as in various co-curricular activities, there is no doubting the competitive social environment, perhaps especially so, when children are given increasing independence and responsibility within the school environment in their later years. The physical and emotional vulnerability of students during their pre-teen and teenage years can be especially trying for children, parents, and indeed, the educators.

There is no dispute that as a general principle, schools owe their students a duty in law to provide a safe and secure environment for learning and growing. The broad question that arises in the present case is the extent or scope of that duty. This involves both the problem of defining the content of the duty of care, as well as determining whether there has been a breach of the duty, on the facts and circumstances. What is stressed at the outset is that these issues have arisen in the context of a striking out application.

The plaintiff, a 15-year-old student at the material time, sues her former secondary school (“the School”), in the tort of negligence for failing to effectively intervene to stop what she claims to be “bullying” by her peers. The School has taken up an application to strike out the action, and the matter came before me on appeal from the assistant registrar’s (“AR”) decision to strike out only a portion of the statement of claim.

Quite apart from the broad question of the scope of a school’s duty of care to its students in relation to bullying, the pleaded case also raises the question as to when, if ever, it is appropriate to award aggravated damages in the tort of negligence. Are these questions suitable or capable of being determined in a striking out application?

Having considered the case as pleaded in the statement of claim as well as the parties’ submissions, I am striking out the plaintiff’s entire claim on the ground that it is legally and factually unsustainable. My reasons for doing so will be explained in the paragraphs that follow.

Brief factual background

The plaintiff was a student of the School from 2010 to 2013. She has an exceptional talent in music. At the time of the claimed bullying, from 2012 to 2013 (“the material time”), the plaintiff was a member of the school’s Chinese orchestra (“CO”). As the secretary of the CO, she was a part of its executive committee (“EXCO”). The EXCO comprised the School’s students and was under the overall supervision of the School.

The factual substratum of this action finds its origins in the disputes that the plaintiff had with her fellow CO EXCO members beginning from about mid–2012.

According to the plaintiff, in July 2012, she was informed by a teacher-in-charge that she was selected to be the orchestra’s student conductor along with another student.1Statement of Claim (Amendment No 2) (“SOC 2”) at [5] However, because the other CO EXCO members were unhappy at her dual appointment as student conductor and secretary,2SOC 2 at [7] they eventually removed her as student conductor in early August 2012.3SOC 2 at [7a] The School denies that the plaintiff was ever appointed as student conductor, but asserts instead that she was merely nominated to go for a training course on conducting.4Defence (Amendment No 1) (“Defence”) at [9] As will become clearer, however, little needs to be made of this minor factual dispute. What should be noted is that the unhappiness between the plaintiff and her peers, as well as the alleged bullying, started from August 2012 and was sparked off by these events.

In fact, on or about 8 August 2012, the plaintiff’s parents intervened in the unhappy state of affairs by sending an email to, inter alia, the School’s deputy principal expressing their dissatisfaction at the process by which the CO chairman and student conductor were selected, and asking for an explanation as to why their daughter was not selected for either position.5SOC 2 at [13] and the School Principal’s affidavit dated 21 May 2015 (“the School Principal’s 1st Affidavit”) at [21] and p 69 Indeed, this was merely the start of a long series of interactions and meetings between the plaintiff’s parents and the principal, deputy principals, and various teachers of the School.

From August 2012 all the way to the point when the plaintiff communicated her decision to withdraw from the School (sometime in May 2013), the plaintiff’s parents, in particular, her mother, met with various staff and teachers from the School to express her concerns about her daughter being bullied in school.6SOC 2 at [13] to [24] Particulars of the bullying complained of will be set out below when the plaintiff’s pleaded claim is discussed.

As mentioned, by way of a letter sent in May 2013, the plaintiff’s parents informed the School that the plaintiff would be withdrawing from the School from July 2013. As of January 2013, the plaintiff already had a confirmed place in a specialist music school in the United Kingdom (“UK”) for pre-university students.7The School Principal’s 1st Affidavit at [76]

The plaintiff has since completed her A-level examinations in the UK and appears to be heading to the University of Oxford to pursue a music degree this year.8The School Principal’s affidavit dated 16 June 2015 (“the School Principal’s 2nd Affidavit”) at [20]

Plaintiff’s claim

Whilst the plaintiff is now headed for the University of Oxford to pursue her studies in music, the plaintiff and her parents remain deeply concerned about what happened to the plaintiff in the year she spent at the School before she left. I accept that the plaintiff was emotionally affected by the incidents that took place in her last year at the School (especially bearing in mind that this is a striking out application). I point out, however, that there is no evidence or indeed assertion in the pleadings that the events in the School caused any psychiatric injury. Moreover, aside from a bare claim for “future medical expenses, if any”, it does not appear that the plaintiff suffers from any continuing, actionable harm.

This does not, of course, mean that the plaintiff did not suffer any actionable loss or injury from the alleged bullying in the School. Specifically, she claims damages for physical injuries (irritant dermatitis), pain and suffering, and loss of amenity.9SOC 2 at [28], [30] and p 29 She also claims for future medical expenses (if any) and special damages including the costs of her A-level education in the UK. Finally, she claims for aggravated damages.10SOC 2 at [29] and p 29, prayer (b) I pause to make the observation that there is a conspicuous absence of particulars in the pleadings in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and aggravated damages. The absence of particulars alone is not ordinarily a sufficient basis for striking out. But in the present case, given that there have been two rounds of amendments to the statement of claim, I found the absence of particularisation troubling.

I turn now to the details of the bullying pleaded in the plaintiff’s statement of claim. These particulars lie at the heart of the present claim. I note that there is some dispute between the parties as to whether the pleaded conduct even amounts to “bullying”. The relevance of this dispute will subsequently be considered. In this judgment, for ease of reference only, I shall refer to the said conduct as “the bullying”. This should not, however, be construed to mean that the court agrees with the plaintiff’s case that the conduct does amount to bullying (whatever the term means).

Particulars of the bullying are set out at paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim. As counsel for the School, Mr Thio Shen-Yi, SC (“Mr Thio”) observed in his submissions, these particulars were only added after the School pointed out that the original statement of claim was bereft of details.11Defendant’s submissions dated 19 August 2015 (“The School’s submissions”) at [28] The bullying pleaded took place during two distinct time periods, and the substance of the bullying complained of changed in the second time period.

The first spate of alleged bullying took place between August and September 2012. It primarily consisted of negative comments, attitudes and reactions the other CO members expressed and held towards the plaintiff arising from the selection of the new CO EXCO and the plaintiff’s desire for two separate positions. This is the substance of the particulars pleaded in the statement of claim: Between 7 and 8 August 2012, the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson of the CO EXCO informed the plaintiff that she would no longer be student conductor and that another student would be the sole student conductor: para 7(a). Between 7 and 8 August 2012, the plaintiff was informed by the Chairperson and/or the Vice Chairperson of the CO EXCO that the EXCO was “freaking biased” against her, that the EXCO has been “mean” to her, and that she was selfish for wanting a “double role” as student conductor and secretary: para 7(a). On 8 August 2012, the Vice Chairperson of the CO EXCO informed the plaintiff that the EXCO ostracised her and that it was “bitchy” of the EXCO to do so: para 7(b). Sometime between July...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT