Chua Chye Leong Alan v Grand Palace De-luxe Nite Club Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 12 July 1993
• Date: 12 July 1993
• Docket Number: Suit No 8524 of 1985
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chua Chye Leong Alan

Plaintiff

and

Grand Palace De-luxe Nite Club Pte Ltd

Defendant

[1993] SGHC 160

L P Thean J

Suit No 8524 of 1985

High Court

Bailment–Bailees–Duties–Contract of bailment–Nightclub owner provided car parking service for customers–Jockeys employees of independent contractor engaged by nightclub owner–Car owner handed car over to jockey–Car parked at public car park–Whether there was delivery of possession of car–Whether there exists relationship of bailor and bailee–Whether bailment for reward or gratuitous–Contract–Contractual terms–Exclusion clauses–Condition excluding liability appeared on displayed notice board–Whether nightclub owner sufficiently drew car owner's attention to content of notice board–Whether exclusion clause incorporated into contract of bailment–Tort–Negligence–Res ipsa loquitur–Car owner handed car over to jockey–Car and car key lost–No system to ensure keys would not be taken away by unauthorised persons–Bailee could not explain loss–Whether inference that bailee negligent–Tort–Vicarious liability–Nightclub owner engaged independent contractor to provide valet parking service–Jockeys employees of independent contractor–Whether jockeys pro hac vice employees of nightclub–Loss of car parked by car jockey–Negligence of jockeys caused loss–Whether nightclub owner vicariously liable for loss

The plaintiff was the owner of a car and the defendant was the owner and operator of a nightclub. The nightclub provided to its customers a valet parking service and engaged car jockeys who stationed themselves at or near the front porch and offered to park customers' cars. The cars were parked in public car parks near the nightclub. It was disputed whether a red notice board was indeed placed at the front porch bearing a condition excluding any liability on the part of the club-owner for negligence or breach of duty. The plaintiff went to the nightclub and handed his car together with the key to a car jockey in exchange for a ticket. When the plaintiff left the nightclub, the jockeys could not find the car or the key.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for breach of contract or, in the alternative, for negligence. The following issues were raised before the court: (a) whether the jockey who had parked the plaintiff's car was the servant or agent of the defendant; (b) whether there was a relationship between the plaintiff as the bailor and the club-owner as bailee in respect of the car; (c) if there was such a relationship, whether the defendant was negligent or in breach of duty as bailee; and (d) whether the defendant was relieved from liability by reason of the condition excluding liability for negligence or breach of duty on the notice board.

Held, allowing the claim:

(1) There was credible evidence given on behalf of the nightclub owner that at the material time there was a red notice board above the key cabinet near the entrance to the building and the notice board bore the exclusion clause: at [16].

(2) The nightclub owner could be liable for the acts of the employees of an independent contractor it engaged, if the employees of the independent contractor could be considered pro hac vice employees of the nightclub. As the management of the nightclub gave the necessary instruction to, had overall control over, and had the right to dictate the manner and mode of the work of, the independent contractor's employees, the employees were pro hac vice the servants or agents of the nightclub: at [20] and [33].

(3) When a customer of the nightclub delivered the car or key to the car to the jockey in attendance, he delivered possession of the car to the jockey and such delivery was made upon an implied trust that the jockey would park the car and subsequently retrieve the car for the customer upon the presentation of the ticket. Since the jockey was pro hac vice a servant or agent of the nightclub, it took possession of the car as the servant or agent of the nightclub, and there was thus a relationship between the customer as bailor and the nightclub as bailee of the car: at [34].

(4) As no evidence was adduced or explanation given by the nightclub to indicate any particular cause for the loss of the key or the car, and where there was no evidence that the jockeys had taken precaution to ensure that the keys would not be removed by an unauthorised person, the inference to be drawn was that the key and the car could not have been taken away without some lack of care on the part of the jockeys. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to plead res ipsa loquitur specifically: at [47].

(5) For the nightclub to exclude liability, it had to do all that was reasonable to bring the exclusion clause to the attention of the plaintiff so that it became a term of the bailment. The nightclub had failed to show that the contents of the red notice board had been brought to the notice of the customer at the material time and was a term of the bailment: at [49] and [50].

[Observation: The duty of a bailee did not depend on whether the chattels subject to the bailment were stored or kept in his own premises or elsewhere: at [39].

To constitute a bailment for reward, it was not necessary that there should be an immediate or tangible benefit or advantage to the bailor, such as payment of a fee to the bailor. In this case, where the nightclub derived some benefit or advantage in the form of increased patronage to the nightclub, that sufficed to constitute a bailment for reward: at [40].]

Appleton et al v Ritchie Taxi [1942] 3 DLR 546; [1942] OR 446 (folld)

Bennett v Chemical Construction (GB) Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1571; [1971] 3 All ER 822 (folld)

Denham v Midland Employers' Mutual Assurance Ltd [1955] 2 QB 437; [1955] 2 All ER 561 (folld)

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell & Co Ltd [1989] AC 643; [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep 8 (refd)

Garrard v Southey & Co [1952] 2 QB 174; [1952] 1 All ER 597 (folld)

Giblin v McMullen (1868) LR 2 PC 317 (refd)

Harling v Eddy [1951] 2 KB 739; [1951] 2 All ER 212 (folld)

Honeywill & Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers (London's Commercial Photographers) Ltd [1934] 1 KB 191 (distd)

Hood v Anchor Line (Henderson Brothers), Limited [1918] AC 837 (distd)

Kua Lee Ngoh v Jagindar Singh [1987] SLR (R) 119; [1987] SLR 239 (refd)

Maritime Coastal Containers Ltd v Shelburne Marine Ltd (1982) 52 NSR (2d) (distd)

Martin v Town N' Country Delicatessen Ltd (1963) 42 DLR (2d) 449; (1963) 45 WWR 413 (distd)

Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB 177; [1969] 2 All ER 1215 (refd)

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Limited [1947] AC 1; [1946] 2 All ER 345 (folld)

Murphy v Hart (1919) 46 DLR 36 (folld)

Port Swettenham Authority v T W Wu & Co (M) Sdn Bhd [1978] 2 MLJ 137; [1979] AC 580; [1978] 3 All ER 337 (folld)

Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446; [1962] 1 All ER 1 (distd)

Shorters Parking Station Ltd v Johnson [1963] NZLR 135 (folld)

Way Sagless Springs Co Ltd v Bevradio Theatres Ltd [1942] 3 DLR 448; [1942] OWN 236 (folld)

Foo Yuk Lin (Tang & Partners) for the plaintiff

Devinder Rai (Harry Elias & Partners) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

L P Thean J

1 The plaintiff was at the material time the owner of a car, BMW 3201A, bearing registration No EH 8118 R. The defendants were the owners and operators of a night club known as Grand Palace De-luxe Nite Club at the Orchard Building. In connection with the operation of the night club, the defendants provided to their customers a car parking service at the front porch of the building. Attendants, known generally as car jockeys, were engaged and they stationed themselves at or near the front porch and offered to park cars of customers and others visiting the night club. There were two public car parks, one in front of the Orchard Building and one at the side, and cars were normally parked in these car parks.

2 On 4 April 1985, at about 11.00pm, the plaintiff went to the night club in his car and upon arrival at or near the front porch of the Orchard Building, he handed his car together with the key to a car jockey who attended on him and in exchange he was handed a ticket bearing No 16757. The jockey took over the car and drove it to a public car park; the plaintiff entered the night club. The plaintiff left the night club at about 1.00am on the following morning and requested a jockey to bring his car. The jockey, however, could not find the car or the key as both were missing.

3 On 28 August 1985 the plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants claiming damages for breach of contract or, in the alternative, for negligence. By his statement of claim (as subsequently amended) the plaintiff averred that he had handed and delivered his car to the defendants, their servants or agents on the implied condition that the defendants, their servants or agents would keep it safely and redeliver it to the plaintiff on demand, and in breach of this implied condition they had failed to keep the car safely and redeliver it to the plaintiff on demand. In the alternative, the plaintiff averred that the defendants, their servants or agents were negligent and by reason of their negligence (particulars of which were set out) the plaintiff suffered damage. In further alternative, the plaintiff averred that the defendants wrongfully failed, neglected or refused to redeliver the car to the plaintiff and thereby wrongfully detained the car whereby the plaintiff had suffered loss and damage.

4 In their defence (as subsequently amended) the defendants averred that at all material times the car parking service rendered to their customers was provided by an independent contractor, Lim Soo Kuang, and the defendants were not liable or responsible for any error or omission of the independent contractor and/or his servant or agent. In the alternative, the defendants averred that there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendants...